Case summaries

The asylum procedure is a specific procedure as the applicants do not have knowledge of the Czech language. If an applicant submits documents in a language other than Czech it must be considered if it is the applicant or the Ministry of Interior who is responsible for providing a translation.

Honour-related violence should be examined in the context of grounds for protection and not humanitarian considerations. The Migration Court of Appeal also discussed the application of the benefit of the doubt.

This was an appeal against the decision to deport an asylum applicant to Italy, when his brother had been admitted to the asylum procedure in France. The Council of State found that, under Art 9(2) Dublin Regulation, Italy was the responsible Member State. Art 8 did not apply as the definition of family members in Art 2(i) does not include siblings. Art 15 was not applicable since the applicant could apply for asylum in Italy. Only after Italy has made a decision the application would it be France's responsibility to decide whether to grant permission to enter and reside in France.  

The fact that a child suffered from epilepsy and that the quality of the care that the child could obtain in Sweden was higher than in the country of origin were not sufficient grounds to grant a residence permit on the grounds of “particularly distressing circumstances” which may only be granted in exceptional cases.

Exclusion from refugee status under Section 60 (8) (2) Residence Act/Art. 12.2 and Art. 12.3 of the Qualification Directive is only justified if the person concerned poses an ongoing threat.

This case examines why asylum or protection grounds should be examined carefully before the issuing of a permit may be considered for ‘exceptionally distressing circumstances’ as expressed in Chapter 5 Section 6 of the Aliens Act. Once an applicant has been assessed as having a reasonably likely need for protection against a specific part of the country of origin, then the assessment of whether there is an internal flight alternative must be carried out within the framework of the provisions on protection.

Traumatised people and those who have suffered otherwise psychologically and physically from flight behave differently when giving evidence compared with healthy people. This can mean that the full submissions relevant to asylum are not provided at the start of the proceedings or the traumatisation itself is not mentioned. These circumstances are to be taken into account during the ban on new evidence.

Exclusion from refugee status on the grounds of serious non-political crimes is only permissible if the applicant still poses a threat. The Court found that an applicant from Turkey, who had been subject to past persecution, was not sufficiently safe from renewed persecution if returned.

The Migration Court of Appeal concluded that the Migration Court made an error in carrying out a credibility assessment before evaluating the evidence. The Migration Board and the Courts must first consider if an applicant was able to make his or her account plausible based on the evidence relied on, and only thereafter make a credibility assessment.

The Court emphasised that an applicant may have the advantage of the benefit of the doubt if his or her account appears credible. In this case, the applicant was deemed not credible and therefore the benefit of the doubt was not applied.

It is important to carefully distinguish between what constitutes evidence and information submitted by the applicant.

For the purposes of assessing whether a child is a member of a particular social group, a person's age is an immutable characteristic.