Last Updated: Friday, 21 July 2017, 15:03 GMT

Legal Information

Filter:
Showing 1-7 of 7 results
Urteil vom 3. November 2006, [X] gegen gegen Bundesamt für Migration (BFM)

3 November 2006 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Commission suisse de recours en matière d'asile | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Safe third country | Countries: Switzerland - Turkey

Urteil vom 9. Oktober 2006, [X] gegen Bundesamt für Migration (BFM)

9 October 2006 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Commission suisse de recours en matière d'asile | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Gender-based persecution | Countries: Ethiopia - Switzerland

Urteil vom 8. Juni 2006, [X] gegen Bundesamt für Migration (BFM)

8 June 2006 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Commission suisse de recours en matière d'asile | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Non-state agents of persecution | Countries: Somalia - Switzerland

Auszug aus dem Urteil der ARK vom 20. Dezember 2005 i.S. L.H., Eritrea

20 December 2005 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Commission suisse de recours en matière d'asile | Document type: Case Law | Countries: Eritrea - Switzerland

Auszug aus dem Urteil der ARK vom 9. Oktober 2002 i.S. J.C. K., Ruanda

Art. 3 Asylum Law, Art. 1 A ciph. 2 Geneva Convention: Relevance of the impending punishment for desertion. Military service cannot be considered as a legitimate civic duty if a person was forcibly recruited in a country where military service is not compulsory. Even if military service is compulsory, it cannot be regarded as a legitimate civic duty if it involves participation in acts banned by international law and proscribed by the international community. In such situations, the threat of punishment due to desertion may be relevant for the granting of asylum.

9 October 2002 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Commission suisse de recours en matière d'asile | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription | Countries: Rwanda - Switzerland

P. S.-S., Sri Lanka

Art. 3, 17, para. 1 and 17a Asylum Law, art. 14a para. 4 and 6 Law on Foreign Nationals: In the case of a married couple, the question of the eligibility for refugee status of one spouse cannot be examined independently of that question concerning the other spouse. In the event of a subsequent marriage in Switzerland of two foreigners who had made separate requests for asylum, the determination of whether refugee status is to be granted to one of the spouses may not be made independently of the determination concerning refugee status of the other spouse. If the FOR has suspended consideration of one of the spouse's request for asylum for an unspecified period of time, in particular so as to conform to the directive given by the Federal Department of Justice and Police in respect of older procedures concerning Sri Lankan nationals, when the other spouse has appealed a decision refusing asylum to the Commission, then the decision challenged shall be quashed and the case remanded back to the FOR, or in other words, set back into the same procedural status as the suspended case of the spouse.

1 February 1999 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Commission suisse de recours en matière d'asile | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Derivative status | Countries: Sri Lanka - Switzerland

A.H. c. l'Office Féderal des Réfugiés (ODR)

-

24 March 1995 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Commission suisse de recours en matière d'asile | Document type: Case Law | Countries: Greece - Switzerland

Search Refworld