Decision No. 830/1985 of the Council of State
|Publisher||Greece: Council of State|
|Author||Council of State|
|Citation / Document Symbol||CoS 830/1985|
|Other Languages / Attachments||Greek|
|Cite as||Decision No. 830/1985 of the Council of State, CoS 830/1985, Greece: Council of State, 1985, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3f4f8b584.html [accessed 6 May 2016]|
|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, an ethnic Kurd, Turkish national, arrived in Greece in 1983 from F.R. Germany where he lived since 1979. He applied for asylum in Greece in 1984 claiming persecution from the Turkish authorities due to his membership of the banned I.G.D. youth movement and to his participation, while in Germany, in demonstrations, organized by the former, against the Turkish military regime. He declared that two brothers of his were detained, maltreated or executed by the Turkish authorities. His asylum application in Germany was rejected in 1980. The application was rejected by the Greek Minister of Public Order (MPO) on the grounds that the applicant was not a refugee according to art. 1A 2 of the Geneva Convention and that he was an economic migrant. The applicant appealed against this decision before the Council of State.
Reasoning and decision: The Court annulled the said negative decision on the following grounds:
A) An alien arriving in Greece and applying for asylum does not have to arrive directly from his country of origin, but simply must have fled a well-founded fear of persecution, pursuant to article 1 A 2 of the Geneva Convention. A refugee "…may thus arrive from a third country if the well founded fear of persecution in his country of origin still persists".
B) The M.P.O. justification of the negative decision was considered vague since it rejected the application as legally unfounded without examining, as it should, the applicant's claims and the evidence – in particular the negative decision by Germany- produced by the latter before the Administration. Furthermore, the Administration's allegation that the applicant was an economic migrant finds no foundations in any element of the applicant's file.
The Court annulled the Minister's negative decision.