Last Updated: Friday, 18 January 2019, 09:54 GMT

Case Law

Case Law includes national and international jurisprudential decisions. Administrative bodies and tribunals are included.
Filter:
Showing 1-10 of 12,331 results
HB (Kurds) Iran CG [2018] UKUT 00430 (IAC)

“whether a failed asylum seeker of Kurdish ethnicity will be at risk of persecution on return”

14 December 2018 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Country of origin information (COI) - Kurd - Returnees | Countries: Iran, Islamic Republic of - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

case of M.A. and Others v. Lithuania (app no. 59793/17)

whether the applicants had actually submitted asylum applications at the border - the Court was satisfied that the applicants had submitted asylum applications, either orally or in writing, at the Lithuanian border on 16 April, 11 May and 22 May 2017. However, border guards had not accepted those applications and had not forwarded them to a competent authority for examination and status determination, as required by domestic law. Furthermore, border guards’ reports to their senior officers had not made any mention of the applicants’ wish to seek asylum on any of the three occasions – there were no references to the writing of “azul” on the decisions, nor to the written asylum application. There was also no indication either in those reports or in any other documents submitted to the Court that the border guards had attempted to clarify what was the reason – if not seeking asylum – for the applicants’ presence at the border without valid travel documents. Nor did it appear that there had been any assessment at all of whether it had been safe to return the applicants – a family with five very young children – to Belarus, which was not a Contracting Party to the European Convention on Human Rights and, according to publicly available information, could not be assumed to be a safe third country for Chechen asylum-seekers. As a result, the applicants had been returned to Belarus without there being any assessment of their asylum claims. It was therefore evident that measures which the Government had claimed constituted adequate safeguards against the arbitrary removal of asylum-seekers – such as the supervision of border guards by superior officers or the monitoring of borders by non-governmental organisations – had not been effective in the applicants’ case. Conclusion: violation (four votes to three).

11 December 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Rejection at border | Countries: Lithuania - Russian Federation

CASE OF KHANH v. CYPRUS (Application no. 43639/12)

4 December 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Cyprus - Viet Nam

Minister of Home Affairs v Ali (1289/17) 2018 ZASCA 169

Citizenship Amendment Act 17 of 2010 - interpretation of s4(3) of the Act - section does not have a retrospective effect - respondents satisfy the requirements of citizenship by naturalisation - failure of the Minister to promulgate regulations for applications for citizenship in terms of s 23 of the Act - the order of the high court directing the Minister to accept applications on affidavits does not encroach upon the doctrine of separation of powers

30 November 2018 | Judicial Body: South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal | Topic(s): Citizenship / Nationality law - Naturalization - Statelessness | Countries: South Africa

Ahmad Shah Ayubi v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Linz-Land (C‑713/17) (request for preliminary ruling)

1. Article 29 of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that refugees with a temporary right of residence in a Member State are to be granted social security benefits which are less than those received by nationals of that Member State and refugees who have a permanent right of residence in that Member State. 2. A refugee may rely on the incompatibility of legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, with Article 29(1) of Directive 2011/95 before the national courts in order to remove the restriction on his rights provided for by that legislation.

21 November 2018 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Economic, social and cultural rights - Refugee / Asylum law | Countries: Austria

Decision 201701423/1/V2

21 November 2018 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: Council of State (Raad van State) | Topic(s): Gender-based persecution - Persecution based on political opinion - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) - SGBV - Women's rights - Women-at-risk | Countries: Afghanistan - Netherlands

Applicant v. State Secretary for Security and Justice

12 November 2018 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: The Hague District Court | Topic(s): Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Internally displaced persons (IDPs) - Safe country of origin | Countries: Netherlands - Ukraine

AFFAIRE K.G. c. BELGIQUE (Requête no 52548/15)

Non-violation de l'article 5 - Droit à la liberté et à la sûreté (Article 5-1 - Arrestation ou détention régulières)

6 November 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Belgium - Sri Lanka

Supreme Administrative Court decision of 2 November 2018 - KHO:2018:147

2 November 2018 | Judicial Body: Finland: Supreme Administrative Court | Topic(s): Armed forces / Military - Burden of proof - Exclusion clauses | Countries: Finland - Syrian Arab Republic

ES (s82 NIA 2002; negative NRM) Albania [2018] UKUT 00335 (IAC)

1. Following the amendment to s 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 ('the 2002 Act'), effective from 20 October 2014, a previous decision made by the Competent Authority within the National Referral Mechanism (made on the balance of probabilities) is not of primary relevance to the determination of an asylum appeal, despite the decisions of the Court of Appeal in AS (Afghanistan) v SSHD [2013] EWCA Civ 1469 and SSHD v MS (Pakistan) [2018] EWCA Civ 594. 2. The correct approach to determining whether a person claiming to be a victim of trafficking is entitled to asylum is to consider all the evidence in the round as at the date of hearing, applying the lower standard of proof. 3. Since 20 October 2014, there is also no right of appeal on the basis that a decision is not in accordance with the law and the grounds of appeal are limited to those set out in the amended s 82 of the 2002 Act.

29 October 2018 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Social group persecution - Standard of proof - Trafficking in persons | Countries: Albania - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Search Refworld