ECRE is currently working on redeveloping the website. Visitors can still access the database and search for asylum-related judgments up until 2021.
Finland - Helsinki Administrative Court, 11 March 2011, 11/0294/1
Country of Decision:
Country of Applicant:
Date of Decision:
11-03-2011
Citation:
11/0294/1
Court Name:
Helsinki Administrative Court
Keywords:
Relevant Legislative Provisions:
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 7
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 15
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 15
Printer-friendly version
PDF version of Summary
Headnote:
The applicant based her claim for asylum on the threats and human rights violations arising as a result of her common-law husband’s political activities and the authorities’ suspicion of the applicant’s support of the opposition party. Refugee status was refused. The Administrative Court found that the applicant had failed to establish a risk of persecution based on her imputed political opinion. The Administrative Court held, that to return the applicant to her country of origin where she has experienced serious human rights violations, in the final stages of pregnancy or with a newborn child, without any social networks to fall back on, taken into account together, would form a real threat of serious harm suffering inhuman or degrading treatment as laid out in Art 88 of the Aliens Act.
Facts:
The Finnish Immigration Service rejected the applicant’s asylum claim and decided to return the applicant to her country of origin, Ethiopia. The applicant applied for asylum because of threats and ill-treatment she suffered which arose as a result of her spouse’s involvement in the Oneg-party. Her spouse fled their home. The applicant discovered her spouse’s political involvement after he fled. The police came to the applicant’s home to take her away. The applicant was imprisoned for two days and interrogated about her spouse’s whereabouts and activities. She was also assaulted. A few days later the police once again came to question the applicant regarding her husband. She was also interrogated regarding her membership in the Oneg-party. Both the applicant and her child were threatened with their lives. The applicant was raped by the police. The applicant appealed the refusal to the Helsinki Administrative Court. The applicant was pregnant at the time of appeal.
Decision & Reasoning:
The Administrative Court decided that:
Ethiopian legislation forbids the practice of arbitrary arrests, however, in practice the government does not enforce this prohibition. There have also been reports of the use of torture and assaults on detainees in instances of detention of opposition supporters. The Oneg-party is listed as a forbidden party.
The Administrative Court held that because the applicant was not aware of her common law husband’s political activities until after he fled, it was unlikely that she is in any position of real authority in the Oneg-party. The Administrative Court found that a sufficient amount of time had passed since the events described took place. Therefore, the Court held that the applicant is no longer of any special interest to the authorities due to the political activities of her ex-common-law husband. As the applicant herself has not at any point been politically or socially active, it is also unlikely that the applicant herself would at this point be suspected or accused of membership of or being supportive of the opposition party. The applicant does not have compelling reasons to fear persecution in her country of origin.
The applicant’s description of events regarding the assault and rape carried out by the police were accepted as credible. For a number of years the applicant has not had any contact with her ex-common-law husband and as a young woman, she does not have any social networks in place in her country of origin. Additionally, the applicant was pregnant.
The Administrative Court held, that to return the applicant to her country of origin would be a breach of her rights as set out in Art 88 of the Aliens Act as she would be at risk of suffering a real threat of serious harm or inhuman or degrading treatment on the basis that she had experienced serious human rights violations in the past, she is in the final stages of pregnancy or would be returned with a newborn child and that she would not have any social networks to fall back on. The applicant was granted a residence permit on the basis of subsidiary protection.
Outcome:
The Administrative Court overturned the Immigration Service’s decision and returned the case back to the Immigration Service for re-examination. The applicant was to be granted a residence permit on the basis of subsidiary protection.
