Population groups

This decision was about the granting of family asylum to a woman of Tibetan ethnicity. It represent a landmark judgment of the FAC acknowledging the existence of a new specific circumstance that goes against the granting of family asylum. The FAC overrules the decision of the SEM to refuse family asylum and refers the matter back to the SEM for further investigation and reassessment.

1 July 2020 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Family reunification - Refugee / Asylum law - Tibetan | Countries: China - Switzerland

June 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports

April 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports

In January 2015, the applicant’s house was destroyed by ordnances. A commission examined the level of destruction and recognized it as inevitable. The applicant referred to the court claiming a compensation according to the Civil Protection Code, the Law on combatting terrorism and the Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The requested amount of compensation was 1 156 356,50 UAH. The applicant’s claim was rejected in the lower instance courts. The applicant appealed the decisions of the lower-instance courts and reached the Supreme Court. The latter decided that the applicant is entitled to compensation due to the state’s failure to elaborate the relevant compensation mechanism as a protection measure of the property right. Ukraine is now obliged to compensate for the damaged housing under Protocol 1 to the ECHR. There is no clear mechanism on the payment of compensations though. Therefore, the Court assigned 100,000 UAH of compensation from the State Budget of Ukraine, which is much lower than an applicant requested. However, the decision is final and cannot be disputed in Ukraine.

25 March 2020 | Judicial Body: Ukraine: Supreme Court | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness - Ukrainians | Countries: Ukraine

March 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports

The Court had therefore to examine whether any effective guarantees existed that protected the applicants against arbitrary refoulement by the Bulgarian authorities to China, be it direct or indirect. No destination country had been indicated in the initial decisions for the applicants’ repatriation or in the expulsion decisions. According to the Supreme Administrative Court, the determination of such a country and the assessment of any risk the applicants would face if returned to China fell to be carried out in the process of implementation of the expulsion decisions. However, such an approach offered no guarantees that the Bulgarian authorities would examine with the necessary rigour the question of the risk the applicants would face if returned to the country they had fled. It was unclear by reference to what standards and on the basis of what information the authorities would determine, if at all, the relevant risk. Lastly, there was no indication as to whether, if the authorities chose to send the applicants to a third country, they would properly examine whether they would in turn be sent from there to China without due consideration for the risk of ill‑treatment and even death. In sum, there were no effective guarantees, in the process of implementation of the repatriation or the expulsion decisions against the applicants, that they would not be sent back to China.

20 February 2020 | 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): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Uighur | Countries: Bulgaria - China

February 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports

January 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports

December 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports

On 26 December 2019, the Supreme Court issued a decision in a case concerning the registration of the fact of death having occurred in Donetsk NGCA. The application was submitted along with the claim for the accumulated pension debt of a deceased husband. There was no decision regarding the accumulated pension debt, since the first step concerned registration of the fact of death that occurred in the NGCA and exemption from the court fee. In its decision the Supreme Court interprets a complex legal rule which regulates the exemption from court fees in cases establishing legal facts (birth, death, marriage etc.) “that were submitted to the court in connection with armed aggression, armed conflict, temporary occupation and resulted in internal displacement, wounds, captivity or violated property rights”. The Court insisted that such exemption should be granted only if an application is submitted in relation to an armed conflict (e.g. death due to shelling or wounds), while in the present case recognition of the fact of death is related to the issue of pension. In addition to this, the Court stated that in cases related to the registration of the fact of death of those who went missing or dead during the ATO/JFO but on reasons not directly related to hostilities, the applicants are obliged to pay court fees, but may request their reimbursement.

20 November 2019 | Judicial Body: Ukraine: Supreme Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Internal armed conflict - Ukrainians | Countries: Ukraine