ECRE is currently working on redeveloping the website. Visitors can still access the database and search for asylum-related judgments up until 2021.
Czech Republic - Supreme Administrative Court, 24 February 2004, Y.A. v Ministry of Interior, 6 Azs 50/2003-89
Country of Decision:
Country of Applicant:
Date of Decision:
24-02-2004
Citation:
6 Azs 50/2003-89
Court Name:
Supreme Administrative Court
Keywords:
Relevant Legislative Provisions:
International Law > 1951 Refugee Convention > Art 33
Council of Europe Instruments > EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms > Article 3
European Union Law > EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 > Art 12
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 4
Council of Europe Instruments > EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms > Article 3
European Union Law > EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 > Art 12
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 4
Printer-friendly version
PDF version of Summary
Headnote:
If any fact emerges during the interview, which indicates that the applicant could be persecuted for exercising his political rights and freedoms, or has a well-founded fear of being persecuted on the grounds upon which asylum can be granted, the Ministry of Interior obliged to conduct the interview in a way that would achieve an outcome which is sufficiently clear for the needs of considering the asylum claim. It is also necessary to evaluate the way in which state power is exercised in the country of origin, and the real possibility of exercising one’s political rights and other circumstances that could establish grounds for international protection.
Facts:
The applicant, from Iran, applied for asylum on the grounds that his life was in jeopardy because he participated in anti-government demonstrations for which he was imprisoned. He claimed that he could not express his opinions freely. The application was refused by the Ministry of Interior (MOI) on the grounds that the difficulties claimed by the applicant could not be considered as persecution. According to the IMinistry of Interior, personal dissatisfaction with the political situation in one’s country of origin, or having different political views than that of the government, does not as such constitute a reason for granting asylum. The MOI stated that if the applicant had applied for international protection for political reasons and also because he could not freely express his opinions, to the obligation is on the applicant to specifically describe what opinions he had or has.
The applicant appealed against this decision. to Regional Court. The appeal was rejected and the applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC).
Decision & Reasoning:
The SAC stated:
The personal interview with the applicant cannot be carried out in general terms only, without requesting specific information from the applicant. If any fact emerges during the interview, indicating that the applicant could be persecuted for exercising his political rights and freedoms, or has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for exercising his political rights and freedom, or has a well-founded fear of persecution by the state authorities on asylum grounds, the MOI is obliged to conduct the interview in a way that would achieve an outcome which is sufficiently clear for the needs of considering the asylum claim. This rule applies all the more so if the MOI does not have any other basis for its decision.
The MOI often has to make decisions in the proceedings where evidence is lacking. In these cases it is necessary to evaluate the way which state power is exercised in the country of origin, the possibility of exercising one’s political rights and other circumstances that might establish grounds for international protection.
In cases of doubt, this must be in favor of the applicant, for example where other evidence suggest that the respect for human rights in the country of origin is insufficient, where citizens are denied the right to change their government, where unlawful executions are often carried out, as well as disappearances and frequent torture occurs. On the contrary, if the country of origin of the applicant is a democratic state, the burden of proof to establish persecution is on the applicant.
Outcome:
The decision of the Regional Court was cancelled.
Observations/Comments:
The SAC also concluded that the reasoning of the MOI concerning ‘obstacles to travel’ (danger of torture or ill-treatment) was impossible to understand. On one hand the MOI stated, referring to ECtHR judgments, that the mere possibility of torture and ill-treatment in the country of origin did not breach Art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, that the risk must be real. However, the MOI was not able to provide reasons as to why in the present case, the harsh conditions in prisons in Iran did not willful the definition of torture or ill–treatment. The SAC also noted that the ECHR cannot, in principle, be relied on as an argument for not granting asylum.
The ECtHR judgements cited in this case are often relied on by the MOI in negative decisions on international protection.
Decision of the Supreme Administrative Court n. 6 Azs 50/2003-89, available at www.nssoud.cz
