Case Law

This decision replaces all existing country guidance on Iraq.

22 April 2022 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Legal Instrument: 2011 Recast Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): EU Qualification Directive - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Kurd - Travel documents | Countries: Iraq - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

In it’s judgement E 2372/2021 issued 7 October 2021, the Constitutional Court ruled that due to “UNHCR International Protection Considerations with Regard to People Fleeing the Republic of Iraq” from May 2019, Sunni Arab men and boys of fighting age, who lived in an area under ISIS control and/or where ISIS maintains a presence and women and children associated with real or perceived ISIS members on account of their family or tribal relations meet a specific risk profile as they are under general suspicion of supporting ISIS. Therefore, people fulfilling these characteristics are likely in need of international refugee protection, depending on the individual circumstances of the case. Referring to the UNHCR International Protection Considerations as well as the “EASO Country Guidance: Iraq” from January 2021 the Constitutional Court ruled that the Federal Administrative Court must duly take into consideration the individual situation of the complainant against the backdrop of the specific risk profile in case the complainant has put forward fear of persecution because of the affiliation to the risk profile in a substantiated way. In the present case the Federal Administrative Court assumed that the alleged threat by Shiite militias was due to the battles between ISIS, militias and Iraqi units at that time and has not been directed against the complainant or his family directly. It denied an individual persecution without considering that the complainant – a Sunni Arab of fighting age, who lived in an area under ISIS control – was meeting a specific risk profile. The Federal Administrative Court’s findings were thus found to be arbitrary by the Constitutional Court.

27 January 2022 | Judicial Body: Austria: Constitutional Court of Austria (Verfassungsgerichtshof) | Topic(s): Armed forces / Military - Asylum-seekers - International armed conflict - Social group persecution | Countries: Austria - Iraq

preliminary ruling on interpretation of article 40 Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection

9 September 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Austria - Iraq

(1) The concept of ‘new elements or findings [that] have arisen or have been presented by the applicant’, as used in Article 40(2) and (3) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, must be interpreted as meaning that it also covers elements or findings which already existed before the procedure relating to a previous application for international protection was definitively concluded, but which were not relied on by the applicant in the context of that procedure. (2) Article 40(3) of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as meaning that the substantive examination of a subsequent application does not require a specific procedure, provided that the national procedure fulfils the requirements laid down in Chapter II of that directive. Article 42(2) of that directive, read in conjunction with Article 40(2) to (4) and Article 33(2)(d) thereof, must be interpreted as prohibiting the setting of time limits per se. (3) Article 40(4) of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as meaning that the condition relating to the absence of fault laid down therein cannot be applied in the context of an administrative procedure unless that condition is expressly laid down in national law in a manner that satisfies the requirements of legal certainty. It is for the referring court to verify whether this is the case here.

15 April 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Austria - Iraq

22 September 2020 | Judicial Body: Finland: Supreme Administrative Court | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Family reunification - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Finland - Iraq

The Court found in particular that Article 5 was applicable to the applicants’ case as their presence in the transit zone had not been voluntary; they had been left to their own devices for the entire period of their stay, which had lasted between five and 19 months depending on the applicant; there had been no realistic prospect of them being able to leave the zone; and the authorities had not adhered to the domestic legislation on the reception of asylum-seekers. Given the absence of a legal basis for their being confined to the transit zone, a situation made worse by them being impeded in accessing the asylum system, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of the applicants’ rights protected by Article 5 § 1. The conditions the applicants had lived in had also been appalling: they had had to sleep in the transit zone, a busy and constantly lit area, with no access to washing or cooking facilities. There had thus also been a breach of Article 3 as their treatment had been degrading.

21 November 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Airports - Arbitrary arrest and detention - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions - Right to liberty and security - Transit | Countries: Iraq - Palestine, State of - Russian Federation - Somalia - Syrian Arab Republic

Art 2 • Art 3 • Expulsion • Sunni Muslim killed shortly after removal to Iraq where he had previously suffered life-threatening incidents • Inadequate assessment of risks with regard to tensions between Shia and Sunni Muslims

14 November 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Non-refoulement - Right to life | Countries: Finland - Iraq