Germany – High Administrative Court Hessen, 15 September 2010, 5 A 1985/08.A

Country of Decision:
Country of Applicant:
Date of Decision:
15-09-2010
Citation:
5 A 1985/08.A
Additional Citation:
asyl.net/M17910
Court Name:
High Administrative Court Hessen
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF version of SummaryPDF version of Summary
Headnote: 

This case concerned the revocation of refugee status as a result of the applicant having been convicted of criminal offences. Although the circumstances which led to the recognition of refugee status have not ceased to exist, the revocation of refugee status was deemed to be lawful, since the applicant was convicted of several criminal offences. It was also found that the corresponding provision of German law was in line with Art 14.4 (b) of the Qualification Directive.

Facts: 

The applicant came to Germany in 1985 at the age of five together with his mother. An appeal against the rejection of their asylum applications was successful and an Administrative Court asked the authorities to grant asylum (based on the German constitution) and refugee status in March 1993.

The applicant had not completed school and had no vocational education. Between 1998 and 2003, he was convicted of several criminal offences, including robbery and causing bodily harm, most recently he was sentenced to a prison term of five years and nine months. In July 2005, the authorities revoked both the asylum status (based on the German constitution) and the refugee status, arguing that he presents a danger to the community.

The appeal against the rejection was dismissed by the Administrative Court Wiesbaden. The application for admission of a further appeal (Antrag auf Zulassung der Berufung) to the High Administrative Court was based on the grounds that the applicant, immediately upon return to Sri Lanka or later on would be at a high risk of being detained during raids. Moreover, the applicant argued that he had been living in Germany since the age of five and therefore he had no connections to Sri Lanka and was not able to speak Sinhalese. Therefore, he would not be able to make a living and settle upon return to Sri Lanka. 

Decision & Reasoning: 

The court confirmed that in a case where the applicant posed a danger to the community because of serious crimes, then asylum or refugee status could be revoked even if the conditions for recognition had not ceased to exist. A decision therefore would need to be made about risks that the applicant would face if returned (according to the standards of subsidiary protection or of other prohibitions of deportation respectively). This is in line with the Qualification Directive (Art 14.4 (b)). The corresponding provision in German legislation (Section 60 (8) (1) (2) Residence Act) allows not only for the exclusion from asylum (based on the German constitution), but also for exclusion from refugee status.

Notwithstanding the state of emergency in Sri Lanka and the poor security and human rights situation a “prohibition of deportation” (i.e. subsidiary protection or other form of protection from deportation) does not apply. This is because the applicant - even though he does not feel he belongs to any religion – belongs to the Muslim minority, which itself was subjected to attacks of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Therefore he would not be under suspicion to be a supporter of the LTTE.

There is also no considerable probability of a concrete risk for life, physical integrity or freedom for other (humanitarian) reasons. Severe supply problems only exist in some areas in the North and East of Sri Lanka. Furthermore, the applicant would be able to find work. 

Outcome: 

Revocation of the right to asylum. Denial of “prohibition of deportation” based on Section 60 (2) through (7) Residence Act.