Case summaries

The administrative authorities, when carrying out an assessment of whether a subsequent application for refugee status is inadmissible (based on the same grounds), should compare the factual basis for the administrative case on which a final decision has been made with the testimony of the foreignor provided in the subsequent application and should also examine whether the situation in the country of origin of the applicant and also the legal position have changed.

Pursuant to Article 30 (6) of Legislative Decree No. 286/1998, disputes concerning authorisations relating to family reunification should be excluded from the jurisdiction of administrative courts and should rather be dealt with by ordinary courts. According to judgment No. 1414/2010 of the Regional Administrative Court in Lazio, ordinary courts may be referred to not only in appeals against refusals to issue a family reunification authorisation, but also to pass autonomous judgments concerning entitlement to obtain authorisations or clearance for family reasons.

The applicant claimed that he would face persecution if returned to Bangladesh due to his Ahmadi (Ahmadiyya) religion. Both the applicant’s father and brother were attacked because of their religion. The Office of Immigration and Nationality (OIN) rejected the application stating that effective protection is accessible within Bangladesh. The Court accepted the OIN’s reasoning. The prohibition of refoulement did not apply.

This case concerned the revocation of asylum and refugee status in the case of a former official of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) (following the European Court of Justice case of Federal Republic of Germany v B (C-57/09) and D (C-101/09), 09 November 2010).

The state cannot remove an applicant for asylum if the conditions of Art 31 of 1951 Refugee Convention are met.

At issue in this case was whether the applicant qualified for subsidiary protection or protection for humanitarian reasons, considering her personal circumstances of extreme vulnerability.

The applicant claimed asylum in November 2009 alleging a well founded fear of persecution for reasons of race and religion. The application was refused by the Ministry of Interior on the grounds that the application did not amount to persecution in accordance with the 1951 Refugee Convention. On appeal, the High National Court re-examined the application and held that the conflict which had arisen in the Ivory Coast had to be taken into account and on that basis subsidiary protection should be granted.

Refugee status was granted to the applicants (parents) because of their advocacy in Afghanistan for democracy, separation of state and religion, equality between men and women, and their membership of and support for the party “Comprehensive movement for democracy and progress in Afghanistan”. Refugee status was granted to their children because of their membership of a particular social group of “family”.

Threats by political opponents are to be considered as imminent persecution by non-State actors according to Art. 60 (1) sentence 4 (c) of the Residence Act in conjunction with Art. 6 (c) of the Qualification Directive. The Afghan State is unwilling and unable to grant protection against such persecution by non-State actors (Art 7 of the Qualification Directive).

Partly as a result of his detention, the foreigner's financial resources are limited. The obligation to pay €227.00 in court fees for the processing of an appeal therefore constitutes a major breach of the right to access to justice guaranteed under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, amongst other provisions. The appeal should therefore have been examined on its merits despite the court fees not being paid.

The Tribunal considered an appeal which raised issues relating to when the arbitrary deprivation of nationality, including the circumstances in which the refusal by the State of nationality to provide documents to allow the applicant to be re-admitted constitutes persecution. It held that these were matters within its jurisdiction and the question of whether a national of a State has been lawfully or unlawfully deprived of that nationality was a legitimate issue to be considered in deciding upon a claim for international protection. Whether arbitrary deprivation of nationality amounts to persecution is a question of fact. The same is true of the denial of the right of return as a national; although in practice it is likely that such a denial will be found to be persecutory.