ECRE is currently working on redeveloping the website. Visitors can still access the database and search for asylum-related judgments up until 2021.
Portugal: Administrative Litigation Section of the Central Administrative Court, 24/10/2019, proc. nº 397/19.9BELSB
Country of Decision:
Country of Applicant:
Date of Decision:
24-10-2019
Citation:
Administrative Litigation Section of the Central Administrative Court, 24/10/2019, proc. nº 397/19.9BELSB
Court Name:
Central Administrative Court
Relevant Legislative Provisions:
International Law
International Law > 1951 Refugee Convention
International Law > 1951 Refugee Convention > Art 33
International Law > 1951 Refugee Convention
International Law > 1951 Refugee Convention > Art 33
National / Other Legislative Provisions:
Art. 3
5
6
7
13
15
16
18
26
84
499 Law 27/2008
Art. 41 Law 23/2007
5
6
7
13
15
16
18
26
84
499 Law 27/2008
Art. 41 Law 23/2007
Printer-friendly version
PDF version of Summary
Headnote:
The applicant claims that the original Court neither made a detailed analysis of the applicant's political action – that gave rise to the persecution and, consequently, the asylum application – nor of the subsidiary protection application.
The recursive claim was declared unfounded by the Central Court, which found that there was no evidence of persecution or systematic human rights violations in the country of origin.
Facts:
The applicant, a national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, left his country of origin because he believed the authorities would detain him due to his work as a union leader.
In 2019, he arrived at the airport of Lisboa without valid documents to travel. He then applied for asylum, which the Portuguese authorities denied. Following the rejection of his application, he lodged an appeal against that refusal.
Decision & Reasoning:
First, the Court noted that the applicant had not presented any facts related to the analysis of the conditions' fulfillment to benefit from international protection, having provided incoherent and contradictory statements
Moreover, the Court stated that the applicant did not indicate any persecutory act or threats that constitute systematic human rights violations. Thus, the Court did not consider the case eligible for subsidiary protection.
Dismissing all the applicant’s invocations against the decision appealed, the Court denied the appeal and rejected the asylum application.
Outcome:
Appeal denied
Observations/Comments:
This summary was written by Larissa Beckman, LLM stuent at Queen Mary University London.
Other sources cited:
Domestic case law cited
- Admin Court South, n. º 441/19.0BELSB, 26-09-2019
- Admin Court South, n. º 77/19.5BELSB, 06-06-2019
- Admin Court South, n. º 2764/17.3 BELSB, 06-08-2018
- Admin Court South, n. º 1888/17.1BELSB, 31-01-2018
- Admin Court South, n. º 420/16.9BELSB, 02-08-2016
- Admin Court South, n. º 13568/16, 10-08-2016
- Admin Court North, n. º 1182/17.8/BEBRG, 30-05-2018
- Admin Court North, n. º 01647/17.1BELSB, 26-01-2018
- Supreme Admin Court, Proc. n. º 42793, 07-05-1998
- Supreme Admin Court, Proc. n. º 43838, 02-02-1999
