You are here

Home › [all case summaries] › Serious harm ›

EDAL case summaries

UK - Upper Tribunal, 28 November 2011, AMM and others v Secretary of state for the Home Department [2011] UKUT 00445

Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Religion, Subsidiary Protection, Serious harm, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Individual threat, Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict, Armed conflict, Burden of proof, Credibility assessment
In this case the Tribunal considered the general country situation in Somalia as at the date of decision for five applicants, both men and women from Mogadishu, south or central Somalia, Somaliland and Puntland. The risk of female genital mutilation (FGM) was also considered.
Date: 28-11-2011
Legal Provisions Cited: 1951 Refugee Convention, Art 1A, CFREU, Art 18, Art 47, ECHR, Art 3, Qualification Directive, Art 10, Art 13, Art 15 (c), Art 15, Art 2, Art 8.1, Art 8, Art 9

Czech Republic - Supreme Administrative Court, D.A. v Ministry of Interior, 25 Nov 2011, 2 Azs 100/2007-64

Country of Decision: Czech Republic
Country of Applicant: Congo (DRC)
Keywords: Subsidiary Protection, Serious harm, Assessment of facts and circumstances, Country of origin information
In cases concerning countries which are not democratic and secure decision-makers must not only look to ratified international treaties as evidence of the human rights situation. It is necessary to examine carefully how international obligations and the legal system as a whole are applied in practice.
Date: 25-11-2011
Legal Provisions Cited: Legislation - Czech Republic, Asylum Act (325/1999 Coll.) Art 14(a), UNCRC (First Optional Protocol)

Germany - Federal Administrative Court, 17 November 2011, 10 C 13.10

Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Iraq
Keywords: Subsidiary Protection, Real risk, Serious harm, Individual threat, Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict, Assessment of facts and circumstances, Circumstances ceased to exist, Revocation of protection status
When establishing the necessary “density of danger” in an internal armed conflict within the meaning of Section 60 (7) (2) Residence Act/Art. 15 (c) Qualification Directive, it is not sufficient to quantitatively determine the number of victims in the conflict. It is necessary to carry out an “evaluating overview” of the situation, which takes into account the situation of the health system. However, this issue was not decisive in the present case, as the applicant would only face a low risk of being seriously harmed.
Date: 17-11-2011
Legal Provisions Cited: ECHR, Art 3, Qualification Directive, Art 4.4, Art 4, Art 15 (b), Art 15, Art 15 (c), Art 18, Art 2 (e), Art 2, Art 2 (f), Recital 3

Hungary - Metropolitan Court, 21 October 2011, M.H. v. Office of Immigration and Nationality (OIN), 6.K. 34 830/2010/19

Country of Decision: Hungary
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Serious harm, Internal protection, Personal interview
Subsidiary protection was granted to the applicant due to the lack of his family ties in Afghanistan on the basis of the risk of serious harm (torture and inhuman treatment).
Date: 21-10-2011
Legal Provisions Cited: 1951 Refugee Convention, Art 1A, ECHR, Art 3, Legislation - Hungary, Hungarian Act LXXX of 2007 on Asylum Art 15, Hungarian Act LXXX of 2007 on Asylum Art 6, Hungarian Act LXXX of 2007 on Asylum Art 61, Hungarian Act LXXX of 2007 on Asylum Art 63

Ireland - J.T.M. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, [2011] IEHC 393

Country of Decision: Ireland
Country of Applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Subsidiary Protection, Serious harm, Actors of protection, Gender Based Persecution, Non-state actors/agents of persecution
This case concerned the meaning of the term “serious harm” in the Qualification Directive (as transposed into Irish law). The Irish state refused to grant the applicant subsidiary protection on the basis that the term imputes the absence of State protection, if the fear of harm is from non-state actors. The applicant argued that this was incorrect.
Date: 11-10-2011
Legal Provisions Cited: ECHR, Art 3, Legislation - Ireland, European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 (SI No.518 of 2006) Reg 2(1), European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 (SI No.518 of 2006) Reg 5(1)(c), Interpretation Act 2005, Sec 2, Interpretation Act 2005, Sec 20, Qualification Directive, Art 6, Art 7

Sweden – Migration Court of Appeal, 7 Sept 2011, UM 20196-10

Country of Decision: Sweden
Country of Applicant: Kenya, Somalia
Keywords: Subsidiary Protection, Serious harm, Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict
If an applicant has serious criticism of a language test conducted to determine their country of origin, the Migration Board must investigate the grounds before making a decision, or at least respond to the applicant's criticism so that the submission can be completed.If the Migration Court considers a language test report to be unreliable or inadequate, it can decide to request a new language analysis or return the case to the Migration Board for further investigation, but cannot choose to ignore the analysis entirely.
Date: 07-09-2011

Germany - High Administrative Court Hessen, 25 August 2011, 8 A 1657/10.A

Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Political Opinion, Subsidiary Protection, Serious harm, Individual threat, Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict, Internal protection, Personal circumstances of applicant, Subsequent application
The applicant was eligible for subsidiary protection as an internal armed conflict is taking place in Logar. The applicant, in case of return to Afghanistan, could not relocate to Kabul, since he could not secure his livelihood there. In order to secure his livelihood, he could not rely on property which his family had possessed in the province of Logar.
Date: 25-08-2011
Legal Provisions Cited: 1951 Refugee Convention, Art 1A(2), Qualification Directive, Art 4.3, Art 4, Art 15 (c), Art 15, Art 8

Spain - High National Court, 8 July 2011, 302/2010

Country of Decision: Spain
Country of Applicant: Ivory Coast
Keywords: Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Race, Religion, Subsidiary Protection, Serious harm, Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict, Safe third country
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.
Date: 08-07-2011
Legal Provisions Cited: ECHR, Art 3, Legislation - Spain, Asylum Law 12/2009 Art 4

Germany - Administrative Court Köln, 21 June 2011, 20 K 6194/10.A

Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Sudan, Syria
Keywords: Subsidiary Protection, Real risk, Serious harm, Torture, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Non-refoulement, Standard of proof, Subsequent application
The court found that a prohibition of deportation under Section 60 (2) of the Residence Act (corresponding to Art. 15 (b) of the Qualification Directive) was established due to the existence of a general risk of persecution in case of return to Syria. The Administrative Court, in their assessment of risk, went far beyond the prevailing case law, particularly that of the High Administrative Courts.A particular mode of persecution cannot be detected in Syria due to the arbitrariness and the juxtaposition of different intelligence services, whose impact cannot be predicted.A further...
Date: 21-06-2011
Legal Provisions Cited: CFREU, Art 19.2, Art 19, ECHR, Art 3, Qualification Directive, Art 15 (b), Art 15

Hungary - Metropolitan Court, 22 April 2011, ... v. Office of Immigration and Nationality, 17.K30.864/2010/18

Country of Decision: Hungary
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Subsidiary Protection, Serious harm, Indiscriminate violence, Armed conflict, Country of origin information, Internal protection, Non-refoulement
The applicant could not substantiate the individual elements of his claim with respect to his well-founded fear of a blood feud; however, he was able to satisfy the criteria for subsidiary protection. As a result of the armed conflict that was ongoing in the respective province in his country of origin (Ghazni, Afghanistan), the high intensity of the indiscriminate violence was deemed to be sufficient to be a threatening factor to the applicant’s life. As a result, the criteria of subsidiary protection were fulfilled.
Date: 22-04-2011
Legal Provisions Cited: 1951 Refugee Convention, Art 1A, Hungarian Act LXXX of 2007 on Asylum Art 12(1), Legislation - Hungary, Hungarian Act LXXX of 2007 on Asylum Art 13(1), Hungarian Act LXXX of 2007 on Asylum Art 6(1), Hungarian Act LXXX of 2007 on Asylum Art 61(b), Hungarian Act LXXX of 2007 on Asylum Art 61(c), Qualification Directive, Art 15 (b), Art 15, Art 15 (c)

Pages

Filter by country of decision

Filter by date

Project supported by

Follow EDAL