Decision No. 3833/1992 of the Council of State
|Publisher||Greece: Council of State|
|Author||Council of State|
|Citation / Document Symbol||CoS 3833/1992|
|Other Languages / Attachments||Greek|
|Cite as||Decision No. 3833/1992 of the Council of State, CoS 3833/1992, Greece: Council of State, 1992, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3f4f8e684.html [accessed 21 September 2014]|
|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, a Sri Lankan national, applied for asylum in Greece and her application was definitely rejected by the Minister of P.O. in 1990 because she did not fulfill the refugee determination criteria of the Geneva Convention and her file included no elements demonstrating that she was persecuted for reasons of race, religion, political opinions etc. The applicant appealed against this decision before the Council of State, claiming that a) when her application was examined by the committee established by art. 4 of the Joint Ministerial Decree of the Minister of Public Order and the Minister of Foreign Affairs she was not summoned, not was a UNHCR representative present and b) she challenged the adequate reasoning of the negative decision that she allegedly "left her country following invitation and to search for a better living".
Reasoning and decision:As to the first claim of annulment, the Court considered that, given that the joint ministerial decree is null and void because is lacks legal authorization, the consultation of an ad hoc committee and the presence of a UNHCR representative in its meetings, represent a voluntary acceptance of a form by the Administration; the Applicant's claim that it did not abide by that form is of no avail. As to the second claim of annulment, the justification of the act is legal and adequate, since the Applicant did not produce, either on the first or on the second instance, specific elements of persecution. Her final claim, challenging the adequacy of the reasoning of the decision under review that she left her country following invitation and in search of a better living, is of no avail and should be rejected.
The Court rejected the application for annulment and confirmed the administrative act under appeal.
Note: The Court, on its own motion, examined 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".