Afghanistan

(1) The duty of candour which applies in judicial review proceedings obliges the parties to disclose all material facts, including those which are or appear to be adverse to his case. (2) That duty also obliges the parties to make reasonable enquiries to identify such facts, so as to ensure that the judge dealing with the application has the full picture. (3) In practice, the duty of candour obliges an applicant’s legal representatives in Age Assessment Judicial Review proceedings to: (i) Ascertain what social media and other methods of communication are used by the applicant; (ii) Consider the relevant accounts with a view to ascertaining whether they contain any material which potentially undermines the applicant’s case; and (iii) Disclose any material which might be relevant to the case, including any material adverse to the applicant. (4) The duty is a self-policing one, but the Upper Tribunal might legitimately require a ‘disclosure statement’ from an applicant’s solicitor, confirming that the applicant has disclosed to them the details of any social media accounts that they hold and that the solicitor in question has undertaken a reasonable and proportionate search of those accounts in order to ensure that all documents relevant to the issues in the case have been disclosed. (5) When the Upper Tribunal considers an application for specific disclosure, it will be a highly material consideration that the applicant’s solicitor has made such a disclosure statement. (6) In order for the Upper Tribunal to make an order for specific disclosure, it is necessary for there to have been an application for the same; such an order cannot be made as a matter of course. Instead, the test will always be whether, in the given case, disclosure appears to be necessary in order to resolve the matter fairly and justly. (7) An order for specific disclosure of material from an applicant’s social media accounts is likely to represent an interference with 2 their private life and it is necessary to consider the breadth of the disclosure required in order to decide whether a less intrusive measure might suffice.

27 October 2022 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Afghanistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

This case concerned the sinking on 20 January 2014 of a fishing boat transporting 27 foreign nationals in the Aegean Sea, off the island of Farmakonisi, resulting in the death of 11 people, including relatives of the applicants. The Court found violations of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).

7 July 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Rescue at sea / Interception at sea | Countries: Afghanistan - Greece - Palestine, State of - Syrian Arab Republic

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list and to discontinue the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

16 November 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Illegal entry - Immigration Detention - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Afghanistan - Hungary

In view of the above, the Court notes that the risk of the applicant being expelled and, potentially, being exposed to a risk of treatment in breach of Article 3, has now, at least temporarily, been removed. Moreover, the Court finds that the complaints under Article 13 and on the procedural requirements of Article 3 in the present case are in essence inextricably connected to the proposed expulsion of the applicant (see Nasseri v the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24239/09, § 18, 13 October 2015, and J.W. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 16177/14, § 32, 27 June 2017). In these circumstances, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)). Moreover, it is satisfied that respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto, does not require a continuation of the application by virtue of Article 37 § 1 in fine. Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the list.

21 October 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Human rights law - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Afghanistan - Netherlands

The Constitutional Court addressed its judgement E 3445/2021 (issued 30 September 2021) that an extreme volatility of the security situation in Afghanistan was to be assumed based on country information sheets on Afghanistan issued by the Austrian COI Unit on 11 June 2021 and 19 July 2021 at the date of the decision of the Federal Administrative Court on 29 July 2021. In addition, the widespread media coverage after 20 July 2021 (which was therefore available at the time of the decision of the Federal Administrative Court) lead to the same conclusion. The complainant would have therefor been exposed to a real danger of violation of his constitutional rights under Articles 2 and 3 ECHR if he were to return to Afghanistan. (see also E 3047/2021 issued 24 September 2021)

30 September 2021 | Judicial Body: Austria: Constitutional Court of Austria (Verfassungsgerichtshof) | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Country of origin information (COI) | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria

In its judgment E 3047/2021 issued 24 September 2021, the Constitutional Court ruled that based on the Austrian COI Unit’s (Staatendokumentation) country information sheet on Afghanistan dated 11 June 2021 , the risk of an armed conflict between the Taliban and government troops affecting the whole country should have been apparent to the Federal Administrative Court at the date of its decision on 1 July 2021. Thus, the risk of a serious threat to life or physical integrity as a result of arbitrary violence in the context of an internal conflict for members of the civilian population such as the complainant must have been clear to the Federal Administrative Court at the time of its decision. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court found that due to the widespread media coverage of the developments in Afghanistan, the Federal Administrative Court had to assume that the security situation in Afghanistan was to be classified as extremely volatile. It also reiterated that widespread media coverage must be considered notorious. The Constitutional Court therefore found that the Federal Administrative Court did not meet its obligation to investigate in detail the existence of a real risk of a violation of Art 2 or Art 3 ECHR if the complainant were to return to Afghanistan in view of the almost daily changing situation in the armed conflict between the Taliban and the Afghan government and its troops. The Federal Administrative Court had denied a military conflict in certain places, without considering the serious threat of an imminent significant deterioration of the security situation, that had in fact already partially occurred across the country and was possibly imminent in the places which the Federal Administrative Court considered an internal flight alternative for the complainant (namely Mazar-e Sharif and Herat). Since the Federal Administrative Court’s assumption of the complainant’s return situation in line with Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR was solely momentarily without considering the rapidly changing security situation in Afghanistan, its findings were found to be arbitrary by the Constitutional Court.

24 September 2021 | Judicial Body: Austria: Constitutional Court of Austria (Verfassungsgerichtshof) | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Country of origin information (COI) | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria

The request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 2 (j) of Directive 2011/95 / EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 concerning the standards relating to the conditions to be met by third country nationals or stateless persons in order to benefit from international protection, to a uniform status for refugees or persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and to the content of this protection

9 September 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2011 Recast Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Afghanistan - Germany