Case summaries

This case related to a dispute as to whether the UK or Belgium had responsibility for determining the applicant’s asylum claim

The Applicant challenged the first instance decision and was granted refugee status on the basis of a fear of persecution on grounds of his imputed political opinion, which was not identified by the asylum authority (OIN). The asylum authority considered Kabul as an alternative for internal protection, which was rejected by the Court since the Applicant had no family ties and employment in Kabul, which is getting overpopulated and residents are threatened by terrorist attacks.

A Russian Federation citizen, originally from Chechnya, had applied for international protection in Finland due to threat of persecution based on his/her family’s political activities. The Applicant had been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder because of torture. According to the Immigration Service, he/she could resort to internal relocation as specified in Section 88e of the Aliens Act and there were no grounds for granting international protection. The Administrative Court rejected the appeal. The Supreme Administrative Court took the view that the Applicant has had close ties to the Komi Republic and had no problems with the authorities while living there. Therefore he/she can be expected to rely on internal relocation to another part of the country, as specified in Article 88e of the Aliens Act and he/she was not in need of international protection.

The Immigration Service had rejected applications for residence permits based on family ties, because the Applicants had not been heard in person. Conducting an oral hearing with the Applicants was not mandatory for establishing the requirements for family reunification. The refusal by the Immigration Service to conduct the hearing had in practice lead to the rejection of the applications for residence permits. The Administrative Court considered that the conduct of the authorities had caused undue harm to the Applicants.

The Court stated that the applicant’s fear of persecution and serious threat, related to assaults by her former spouse  are unfounded because the Court believes that the applicant has a reasonable possibility of internal asylum in another part of her country of origin. Consequently, the Court rejected the applicant’s appeal  against the Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) decision refusing the grant of international protection).

The case refers to an administrative appeal before the Supreme Court brought by the Appellant against the High National Court’s judgment denying the right to asylum and subsidiary protection.

The Appellant is a Cameroonian national.In the application he claims to be a minor and that the grounds for persecution was his sexual orientation.

The Supreme Court upheld the appeal and reversed the challenged judgment.Furthermore the Court ordered a reconsideration of the administrative procedure from the beginning, in order to provide the asylum seeker with legal assistance.

Applications for leave to remain were rejected as the Applicant had already been granted refugee status in another EU state. No grounds supporting an examination of the asylum applications in Sweden emerged in the case.

Sweden assumes responsibility for substantively examining an asylum application from when the Applicant is granted a temporary residence document. A decision on transfer under the Dublin Regulation was overturned, and the case was returned to the Swedish Migration Board.

Instead of non-refoulement, the Court granted the Applicant subsidiary protection status because he would be at risk of serious harm upon returning to his home country (torture, cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment).

The Respondent's evidence on the safety situation in Kabul and the possibilities for seeking employment, finding somewhere to live and establishing social networks provided the grounds for the Respondent's decision as well as for the judgment by the court of first enstance, both of which stated that the Applicant, in the event that he returned to Kabul, in his country of origin, would be provided with internal protection from serious harm, and that he is thus not entitled to subsidiary protection in the Republic of Slovenia.