A.B.H. v. Denmark
In such circumstances, the Committee considers that the Refugee Appeals Board failed to adequately assess the author’s real, personal and foreseeable risk if he were returned to Afghanistan, which is based not solely on his profile as a former employee of the international forces but also on the risk of future ill-treatment by the Taliban which reasonably follows from his individual circumstances including his past ill-treatment in his country of origin. 18 November 2019 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Legal Instrument: 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) | Topic(s): Combatants / Former combatants - Deportation / Forcible return - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Afghanistan - Denmark |
A.A. v. 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 | 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 |
Ra 2019/18/0353
To invoke the ceased circumstances clause, the circumstances have to have changed since the status was last extended (here: attaining the age of majority). However, changes in circumstances since the protection status was initially granted may also be relevant. 17 October 2019 | Judicial Body: Austria: Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - Complementary forms of protection - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria |
AFFAIRE KAAK ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE (Requête no 34215/16)
The case concerned the conditions of detention of Syrian, Afghan and Palestinian nationals in the “hotspots” of Vial and Souda (Greece), and the lawfulness of their detention in those camps. The Court considered that the authorities had done all that could reasonably be expected of them in the Vial camp to meet the obligation to provide care and protection to unaccompanied minors. The other applicants had been transferred immediately – or within ten days – from the Vial camp to the Souda camp. The Court also held that the conditions of detention in the Souda camp did not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court reiterated its previous finding that a period of one month’s detention in the Vial camp should not be considered excessive, given the time needed to comply with the relevant administrative formalities. In addition, the length of the applicants’ detention once they had expressed their wish to apply for asylum had been relatively short. In contrast, the applicants, who did not have legal assistance, had not been able to understand the content of the information brochure; in particular, they were unable to understand the material relating to the various appeal possibilities available under domestic law. 3 October 2019 | 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 - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Legal representation / Legal aid - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Afghanistan - Greece - Palestine, State of - Syrian Arab Republic |
Ra 2019/14/0153
Cessation decisions can be based on an available IFA in the country of origin. Generally, changes after the last extension of subsidiary protection status are relevant to determine the change of circumstances. Attaining the age of majority constitutes a relevant change of individual circumstances. 27 May 2019 | Judicial Body: Austria: Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - Changes of circumstances in home country - Complementary forms of protection - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria |
AS (AFGHANISTAN) (Appellant) - and - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Respondent) - and -
THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR
REFUGEES (Intervener) [2019] EWCA Civ 873
24 May 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Topic(s): Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) | Countries: Afghanistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
Arrêt n° 219 682
11 April 2019 | Judicial Body: Belgium: Conseil du Contentieux des Etrangers | Topic(s): Corruption - Credibility assessment - Security situation - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Afghanistan - Belgium |
Khan c. France (application no. 12267/16)
violation of article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment). 28 February 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Refugee camps - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Afghanistan - France - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
Supreme Administrative Court decision of 7 February 2019 - KHO:2019:22
7 February 2019 | Judicial Body: Finland: Supreme Administrative Court | Topic(s): Changes of circumstances in home country - Mental health - Security situation | Countries: Afghanistan - Finland - Iran, Islamic Republic of |
Ra 2018/18/0533
The applicant is an Afghan national and member of the ethnic group of Hazaras who was born and raised in Iran. He lodged an application for international protection in Austria in July 2015 which was rejected in first instance in September 2017.The Federal Administrative Court dismissed his appeal on 03/09/2018, arguing that even though the applicant cannot return to Sar-e Pol (where his family was originally from), there was an IFA available in Kabul or Mazar-e Sharif. It elaborated that the applicant had already gathered professional experience, had grown up in an Afghan family and was native speaker of one of the official languages and concluded that the applicant was familiar with the cultural circumstances in Afghanistan. The Austrian Supreme Administrative Court annulled this decision. It stated that the Federal Administrative Court's conclusion that the applicant was familiar with the cultural circumstances in Afghanistan was not evidence-based and emphasized that that the applicant had explicitly contested this. Furthermore the Supreme Administrative Court criticized that the Federal Administrative Court did not take into account and analyse the UNHCR-Afghanistan guidelines. A respective obligation derives from the respective Austrian case law as well as from European Union Law. The Court emphasized that according to UNHCR there was in general no IFA available in Kabul and that the availability of an IFA in other cities was questionable and needed to be assessed in a thorough manner on a case-to-case basis. 13 December 2018 | Judicial Body: Austria: Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) | Topic(s): Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria - Iran, Islamic Republic of |