Case Law

23 September 2021 | Judicial Body: South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal | Topic(s): Burden of proof - Credibility assessment - Persecution based on political opinion - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness | Countries: Somalia - South Africa

The case concerns the Danish authorities’ decision in 2018 to expel the applicant, with a permanent ban on his re-entry to the country, following his conviction for possession of a firearm. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention, the applicant submits that, in their decisions, the Danish courts failed to weigh in the balance that he did not have a significant criminal past, that he had never been issued with a warning that he might be expelled, and that he had strong ties to Denmark where he has lived with his family since he was four years old.

14 September 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Expulsion | Countries: Denmark - Somalia

(i)Said [2016] EWCA Civ 442 is not to be read to exclude the possibility that Article 3 ECHR could be engaged by conditions of extreme material deprivation. Factors to be considered include the location where the harm arises, and whether it results from deliberate action or omission. (ii) In cases where the material deprivation is not intentionally caused the threshold is the modified N test set out in AM (Zimbabwe) [2020] UKSC 17. The question will be whether conditions are such that there is a real risk that the individual concerned will be exposed to intense suffering or a significant reduction in life expectancy. (iii) The Qualification Directive continues to have direct effect following the UK withdrawal from the EU.

22 July 2021 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): EU Qualification Directive - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Livelihoods | Countries: Somalia - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The case mainly concerns the applicants’ complaints, under Article 5 of the Convention, that their arrest and detention as migrants in an irregular situation were unlawful, and that they were not informed of the reasons for their arrest and had no effective access to the procedure to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest and detention. It also concerns the eighth applicant’s complaint under Article 3 that she, a minor at the time, was not provided with adequate care in detention in connection with her pregnancy and the miscarriage she suffered.

16 July 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Arbitrary arrest and detention - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Eritrea - Guinea - Somalia - Ukraine

The concept of ‘protection’ of the ‘country of nationality’ in Article 2(c) and Article 11(1)(e) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted refers primarily to State protection on the part of an applicant’s country of nationality. It is nonetheless necessarily implicit in the provisions of Article 7(1)(b) and (2) Directive 2004/83 that in certain instances actors other than the State, such as parties or organisations can supply protection deemed equivalent to State protection in lieu of the State where those non-State actors control all or a substantial part of a State and have also sought to replicate traditional State functions by providing or supporting a functioning legal and policing system based on the rule of law. Mere financial and/or material support provided by non-State actors falls below the threshold of protection envisaged by Article 7 of Directive 2004/83. In order to ascertain whether a person has a well-founded fear of persecution, in accordance with Article 2(c) of Directive 2004/83, from non-State actors, the availability of ‘protection’ as described by Article 7(2) of that directive by actors of protection must be taken into consideration. The same analysis must be conducted in respect of the cessation of refugee status in accordance with Article 11(1)(e) of Directive 2004/83. The term ‘the protection of country of nationality’ in Article 11(1)(e) of Directive 2004/83 implies that any inquiry as to the nature of the protection available in that country in the context of a cessation decision is the same as envisaged by Article 7 of that directive. In order to arrive at the conclusion that a refugee’s fear of being persecuted is no longer well-founded, the competent authorities, by reference to Article 7(2) of Directive 2004/83, must verify, having regard to the refugee’s individual situation, that the actor or actors of protection of the third country in question have taken reasonable steps to prevent the persecution, that they therefore operate, inter alia, an effective legal system for the detection, prosecution and punishment of acts constituting persecution and that the national concerned will have access to such protection if he or she ceases to have refugee status.

30 April 2020 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2004 Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - Changes of circumstances in home country - EU Qualification Directive - State protection | Countries: Somalia - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Removal to Puntland, Somalia, is reasonable, thus the enforcement of removal is deemed reasonable in favorable circumstances.

15 January 2020 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Topic(s): Return conditions - Security situation | Countries: Somalia - Switzerland

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

(1) In Secretary of State for the Home Department v MS (Somalia) [2019] EWCA Civ 1345, the Court of Appeal has authoritatively decided that refugee status can be revoked on the basis that the refugee now has the ability to relocate internally within the country of their nationality or former habitual residence. The authoritative status of the Court of Appeal’s judgments in MS (Somalia) is not affected by the fact that counsel for MS conceded that internal relocation could in principle lead to cessation of refugee status. There is also nothing in the House of Lords’ opinions in R (Hoxha) v Special Adjudicator and Another [2005] UKHL 19 that compels a contrary conclusion to that reached by the Court of Appeal. (2) The conclusion of the Court of Appeal in Secretary of State for the Home Department v Said [2016] EWCA Civ 442 was that the country guidance in MOJ & Ors (Return to Mogadishu) Somalia CG [2014] UKUT 00442 (IAC) did not include any finding that a person who finds themselves in an IDP camp is thereby likely to face Article 3 ECHR harm (having regard to the high threshold established by D v United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 43 and N v United Kingdom (2008) 47 EHRR 39). Although that conclusion may have been obiter, it was confirmed by Hamblen LJ in MS (Somalia). There is nothing in the country guidance in AA and Others (conflict; humanitarian crisis; returnees; FGM) Somalia [2011] UKUT 00445 (IAC) that requires a different view to be taken of the position of such a person. It will be an error of law for a judge to refuse to follow the Court of Appeal’s conclusion on this issue.

18 November 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) | Countries: Somalia - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Deportation of girl to Somalia, where she would face an alleged risk of being forcefully subjected to female genital mutilation

25 January 2018 | Judicial Body: UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) | Legal Instrument: 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) | Topic(s): Children's rights - Female genital mutilation (FGM) | Countries: Denmark - Somalia

9 October 2017 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Legal Instrument: 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) | Topic(s): Burden-sharing and international co-operation - Deportation / Forcible return - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Immigration Detention - Reception - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Denmark - Italy - Somalia