Decision No. 3832/1992 of the Council of State
|Publisher||Greece: Council of State|
|Author||Council of State|
|Citation / Document Symbol||CoS 3832/1992|
|Other Languages / Attachments||Greek|
|Cite as||Decision No. 3832/1992 of the Council of State, CoS 3832/1992, Greece: Council of State, 1992, available at: http://www.refworld.org/cases,GRC_CS,3f4f8dcc4.html [accessed 28 March 2017]|
|Comments||This is a summary in English provided by UNHCR Athens.|
|Disclaimer||This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.|
Summary of facts: The Applicant's (Sri Lankan national) application for asylum was definitely rejected in 1990 on the grounds that A) no elements were included in his file as to his persecution by the authorities in his country for reasons of race, religion, political opinions etc. B) that he left voluntarily his country in order to resettle in Canada in search of a better living and C) that he applied abusively for asylum in order to obstruct his expulsion. The Applicant appealed against this decision before the Council of State, claiming that he is ethnic Tamil and left fearing persecution due to his ethnic origin. To corroborate this he produced a) a letter from the Tamil coordinating Committee in France as to the fact that he is an active member of the minority and originates from an area particularly hit by civil strife, b) pictures sent to him from Sri Lanka showing the destruction in his village by governmental forces c) copies of "Amnesty International" documentation on Tamil persecution d) the forged passport he used to leave his country, where he appeared as a Sinhalese and e) a certificate by the priest of his village that the Applicant was forced to leave due to the racial fighting in Sri Lanka.
Reasoning and decision:The Court annulled the said negative ministerial decision as improperly justified because the Administration did not take into account, as it should, the fact that the Applicant left his country with a forged passport where he appeared as of Singhalese ethnic origin and the content of the certificate by the priest of his village. The Court considered that these two pieces of evidence were crucial for the exercise of the Administration's discretionary powers and should be duly taken into account. It rejected the application for annulment, as for the part of the absence of justification, insofar as the other evidence (Tamil coordinating committee letter, pictures from Sri Lanka, AI reports) were produced, for the first time, before the Court and not to the Administration.
The Court quashed the administrative act under appeal.
Note: The Court examined, on its own motion, the legality of the joint Ministerial Decree by the Minister of Public Order and the Minister of Foreign Affairs establishing the procedure of examination of asylum applications and concluded that the said Decree "is lacking the legal authorization enunciated on the provisions it invokes in its preamble and thus becomes void. However, the decision under review has, nonetheless, force of execution, since it was taken after a substantive examination of the case. Furthermore, though the Decree is void, the Minister of P.O. being, in any case, the competent authority for matters pertaining to aliens entry and residence, is also competent to issue decisions on matters of refugee recognition".