EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Lithuania
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Actors of protection, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Persecution (acts of)
The House of Lords confirmed that in addition to establishing a real risk of harm, the applicant would also have to show that their state has failed to provide reasonable protection.
Date: 11-10-2010
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Lithuania
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Actors of protection, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Persecution (acts of)
The Court of Appeal gave guidance on the relevant factors to consider in assessing claims for protection against persecution from non-state actors under the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the ECHR.
Date: 11-11-2003
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Lithuania
Keywords: Actors of protection, Actor of persecution or serious harm, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Persecution (acts of)
Where the actors of persecution feared are themselves state agents consideration must still be given to whether the applicant can avail himself of protection, but this assessment must be made in context. There will be a spectrum of cases between, on the one extreme, those where the only ill-treatment is by non-state actors and, on the other extreme, those where the state itself is wholly complicit in the ill-treatment.
Date: 03-01-2002
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
Filter by country of applicant
- (-) Remove Lithuania filterLithuania
Filter by country of decision
- (-) Remove United Kingdom filterUnited Kingdom
