Persons of concern / Asylum-seekers

The main determination in this case is whether harm amounts to persecution for one of the five reasons set out in the Refugee Convention. The Court considered country background of El-Salvador to assess and determine if the appellant has a well-founded fear/risk of persecution for reasons relating to membership of a particular social group and different political opinion.

15 December 2022 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Acts of persecution - Asylum-seekers - EU Qualification Directive - Gang related violence | Countries: El Salvador - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

1. Article 23(1) 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 45(4) of that directive and in the light of the general principle of EU law relating to the right to sound administration and of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as: precluding national legislation which provides that, where a decision rejecting an application for international protection or withdrawing such protection is based on information the disclosure of which would jeopardise the national security of the Member State in question, the person concerned or his or her legal adviser can access that information only after obtaining authorisation to that end, are not provided even with the substance of the grounds on which such decisions are based and cannot, in any event, use, for the purposes of administrative procedures or judicial proceedings, the information to which they may have had access. 2. Article 4(1) and (2), Article 10(2) and (3), Article 11(2) and Article 45(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 14(4)(a) and Article 17(1)(d) of Directive 2011/95/EU 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, must be interpreted as: precluding national legislation under which the determining authority is systematically required, where bodies entrusted with specialist functions linked to national security have found, by way of a non-reasoned opinion, that a person constituted a danger to that security, to refuse to grant that person subsidiary protection, or to withdraw international protection previously granted to that person, on the basis of that opinion. 3. Article 17(1)(b) of Directive 2011/95 must be interpreted as: not precluding an applicant from being excluded from being eligible for subsidiary protection, pursuant to that provision, on the basis of a criminal conviction of which the competent authorities were already aware when they granted to that applicant, at the end of a previous procedure, refugee status which was subsequently withdrawn.

22 September 2022 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 2011 Recast Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Exclusion clauses - International protection - National security / Public order - Statelessness | Countries: Hungary

September 2022 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country/Situation Specific Position Papers

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) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Armed forces / Military - Asylum-seekers - International armed conflict - Social group persecution | Countries: Austria - Iraq

2022 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Handbooks/Manuals

25 November 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Resolutions/Recommendations/Declarations

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) | Document type: Case Law | 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) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Country of origin information (COI) | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria

June 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Research, Background and Discussion Papers