Afghanistan

The maintenance by a determining authority of a Member State of a practice whereby original documents can never constitute new elements or findings for the purposes of a subsequent asylum application if the authenticity of those documents cannot be established is incompatible with Article 40(2) 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, read in conjunction with Article 4(2) 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. There is no difference between copies of documents or documents originating from a non-objectively verifiable source submitted by an applicant in a subsequent application in so far as all documents have to be considered carefully and rigorously on an individual basis in order to ascertain whether they significantly add to the likelihood that the applicant qualifies as a beneficiary of international protection and in order to prevent a person from being expelled if he or she faces an individual and real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 2. Article 40 of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 4(2) of Directive 2011/95, cannot be interpreted as permitting a determining authority of a Member State, when assessing documents and assigning probative value to such documents, to distinguish between documents submitted in an initial application and those submitted in a subsequent application. A Member State, when assessing documents in a subsequent application, is obliged to cooperate with the applicant to the same extent as in the initial procedure.

11 February 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Fresh / New claim - Refugee / Asylum law | Countries: Afghanistan - Netherlands

The legal representative of the asylum seeker from Afghanistan refused to participate in the « Dublin » hearing due to Covid-19. The hearing had been conducted without any legal representative and the SEM decided on the asylum seeker’s transfer to Germany. The FAC concludes that the absence of a legal representative was due to justifiable good cause. Thus, the hearing has no effect.

4 May 2020 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): COVID-19 - Legal representation / Legal aid - Refugee / Asylum law | Countries: Afghanistan - Switzerland

The case concerned the removal from Switzerland to Afghanistan of an Afghan national of Hazara ethnicity who was a Muslim convert to Christianity. The European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there would be: a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the event of the applicant’s return to Afghanistan.

5 November 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Refugee / Asylum law - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) | Countries: Afghanistan - Switzerland

27 February 2017 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae

13 July 2016 | Judicial Body: Luxembourg: Tribunal administratif | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Family reunification - Refugee / Asylum law | Countries: Afghanistan - Luxembourg

27 May 2015 | Judicial Body: Australia: Refugee Review Tribunal | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Minority rights - Persecution based on political opinion - Refugee / Asylum law - Threats / Intimidation - Visas - Well-founded fear of persecution | Countries: Afghanistan - Australia

8 October 2012 | Judicial Body: Luxembourg: Tribunal administratif | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Family reunification - Refugee / Asylum law | Countries: Afghanistan - Luxembourg

2 May 2012 | Judicial Body: Luxembourg: Tribunal administratif | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Family reunification - Refugee / Asylum law | Countries: Afghanistan - Luxembourg

3 February 2012 | Judicial Body: Belgium: Conseil du Contentieux des Etrangers | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Reception - Refugee / Asylum law | Countries: Afghanistan

November 2010 | Publisher: Ireland: Refugee Documentation Centre | Document type: Legal Articles/Analyses/Commentaries