Decision No. 932/1988 of the Council of State
|Publisher||Greece: Council of State|
|Author||Council of State|
|Citation / Document Symbol||CoS 932/1988|
|Other Languages / Attachments||Greek|
|Cite as||Decision No. 932/1988 of the Council of State, CoS 932/1988, Greece: Council of State, 1988, available at: http://www.refworld.org/cases,GRC_CS,3f4f8c0b4.html [accessed 28 February 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 is an ethnic Kurd, Turkish national, whose application for asylum in Greece was rejected by the Minister of Public Order in the past (the relevant administrative decision was quashed by the 830/1985 decision of the CoS plenary). He asked for the re-examination of his case by the MPO, which led, in 1986, to a second negative decision. The Minister justified his decision on the grounds that A) the Applicant had left Turkey to Germany, in 1979, for studies, with a national passport, before the military coup and while Turkish authorities were aware that he had not served his military service and of his political opinions. B) No proof of activity that justifies fear of persecution was offered – either in Germany or in Greece – while that fact that he remains in Greece because of his marriage to a Greek national is irrelevant. C) His allegations on his family's persecution in Turkey do not constitute a personal fear of persecution and D) the certificates issued by anti-regime movements attesting of his membership to them are not corroborating evidence.
The Applicant, during the re-examination of his case, after the 830/1985 decision of the CoS, had claimed that he was wanted by the Turkish authorities not only due to his membership of the banned I.G.D. youth movement but also because he was a member of the Turkish Communist Party and repeated that he attended, while in Germany, demonstrations, producing newspaper evidence, declarations under oath (before Greek courts) and political party certificates.
Reasoning and decision: The Court annulled the said negative ministerial decision as inadequately justified on the following grounds:
A) The said administrative act limits itself to the conclusion that the specific activities of the Applicant are not proven without taking into account the evidence – papers, declarations – produced by the latter in order to substantiate his political actions in Germany.
B) The said act does not evaluate the content nor does it explain the reasons of not taking into account the political party certificates attesting of his membership to the banned groups.