Population groups

6 November 2019 | Publisher: UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) | Document type: Legal Articles/Analyses/Commentaries

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

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

On 4 September 2019, the Supreme Court adopted its Resolution with regard to compensation for destroyed commercial premises caused by acts of terrorism. On 4 November 2016, the applicant referred to a first-instance court, requesting a compensation for her commercial premises destroyed during the Anti-terrorist operation (ATO) in Mariupol. The main argumentation was based on the lack of a special order regulating payment of compensation for the ATO consequences in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and applicability of relevant European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence. A first-instance court stated that Ukraine should compensate damages/destructions caused by an act of terrorism from the State Budget funds irrespective of Ukraine’s culpability. Simultaneously, the state preserves the right of recourse claim on reimbursing compensation from those liable for acts of terrorism. The Court of Appeals supported this decision. The Supreme Court stated that under Protocol 1 to the European Human Rights Convention an applicant has a right to claim compensation for her damaged or destroyed property irrespective of the fact that the national legal framework on compensatory mechanism is non-existent. It underlined that there is a need to clarify which obligations of the state were violated. Non-fulfilment of positive obligations (introducing a legal framework to ensure that property right violated in the course of the conflict may be effectively protected) or negative obligations (which requires non-interference with the peaceful ownership) will result in the different level of compensation. Since the decisions of lower instance courts did not clarify which particular obligations of the state (positive or negative) were violated, the Supreme Court re-submitted this case to a first-instance court for re-examination.

4 September 2019 | Judicial Body: Ukraine: Supreme Court | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Terrorism - Ukrainians | Countries: Ukraine

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

The central issue is whether the appellant faces a real chance of being seriously mistreated by the authorities in detention, in the course of their investigation.

9 August 2019 | Judicial Body: New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Police - Tamil - Well-founded fear of persecution | Countries: New Zealand - Sri Lanka

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

The situation in Sudan remains volatile after civil protests started in late 2018 and the future is unpredictable. There is insufficient evidence currently available to show that the guidance given in AA (non-Arab Darfuris - relocation) Sudan CG [2009] UKAIT 00056 and MM (Darfuris) Sudan CG [2015] UKUT 00010 (IAC) requires revision. Those cases should still be followed.

29 July 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Country of origin information (COI) - Darfuri | Countries: Sudan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

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

The primary issue to be determined by the Tribunal is whether the appellant is excluded from the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“Refugee Convention”) by the operation of Article 1D which applies, in certain circumstances, to persons being protected or assisted by United Nations (“UN”) organs and agencies other than the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”). If so, the appellant will not be entitled to recognition as a refugee under section 129 of the Immigration Act 2009 (“the Act”).

28 May 2019 | Judicial Body: New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Exclusion clauses - Palestinian | Countries: Lebanon - New Zealand - Palestine, State of