In the first of two High Court cases which concern asylum applications on the grounds of homosexuality the High Court has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision which refused status to a Georgian national, on the basis that said decision was fundamentally flawed.
Facts of the case: Boudjlida concerns an Algerian national who was asked to leave French territory within 30 days after his application for a residence permit in France was refused by French authorities. In the context of his appeal to the Pau Administrative Court, that court asked the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) to clarify:
- What is the extent of the right to be heard laid down by Article 41 of [the Charter] for an illegally staying third-country national in respect of whom a decision falls to be taken as to whether or not he is to be returned?
The facts of the case relate to an Iranian national who notwithstanding the lodging of an asylum application had been detained at both Feres and Soufli border posts following an order of expulsion and an assessment that he risked absconding.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has held that the detention of an unaccompanied minor at Feres and Soufli border posts for over 5 months constituted a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights as well as a violation of the right to an effective remedy and the right to liberty and security.
Facts of the case: The facts of the case relate to three third country nationals who had applied for asylum on the basis that they feared persecution on account of their homosexuality. In all three cases the Staatssecretaris and later the Rechtbank’s-Gravenhage had rejected the applications, surmising that the individuals’ statements concerning their homosexuality were vague, implausible and lacked credibility.
Procedurally the case relates to several (6) asylum applications lodged in Belgium which were refused to be taken into consideration by the authorities and later subject to annulment appeals by the applicant. The last two of these annulment appeals were rejected by the Council of Aliens Law Litigation (CALL) on the basis that the applicant had not provided new elements to the claim.
Following the lodging of an asylum application in Belgium the applicant, a Guinean national, saw his application refused with an order to leave the territory on the basis that Spain under Article 13.1 of Dublin III was competent to deal with his asylum request.