Request a copy

Full Text

• Germany v Yand Z [2012] EUECJ C-71/11 and C-99/11, delivered on 5 September 2012
• See, for example, C-465/07, Elgafaji and Elgafaji v Staatssecretaris van Justitie [2009] ECR I-921 (criteria for qualification for subsidiary protection); C-69/10, Samba Diouf 28 July 2011 (effective remedies during asylum procedures); C-179/11, Cimade et Gisti 27 September 2012 (scope of the obligation to provide asylum applicants with material reception conditions); and C-411/10 and C-493/10, NS and ME 21 September 2011 (the functioning of the EU's responsibility-allocation system, also known as the 'Dublin system')
• See Article 78 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU); and Article 18 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
• Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1952,189 UNTS 150, as amended by the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees 1967, 606 UNTS 267
• Recital 4, Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council 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 (recast), OJ L 337 (Recast Qualification Directive) currently under transposition. She Qualification Directive was originally adopted in 2004, 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, OJ L 304 (Qualification Directive).
• C-175/08, C-176/08, C-178/08 and C-179/08, Germany v Salahadin Abdulla and Others [2010] ECR I-1493, at para 52, where the Court characteristically notes '[t]he Geneva Convention constitutes the cornerstone of the international legal regime for the protection of refugees and.. the provisions of the Directive for determining who qualifies for refugee status and the content thereof were adopted to guide the competent authorities of the Member States in the application of that convention on the basis of common concepts and criteria.'
• Mole and Meredith, Asylum and the European Convention on Human Rights (Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, 2010) at 19
• C-465/07,Elgafaji [2008] ECR I-921, at Opinion of Advocate General Maduro, point 1
• Article 9(1)(a) Qualification Directive. Article 9(1)(b) further stipulates that an act of persecution can be 'an accumulation of various measures, including violations of human rights which is sufficiently severe as to affect an individual in a similar manner as mentioned in point (a).'
• Article 9(3) Qualification Directive
• Article 9(1)(a) Qualification Directive
• C-71/11 and C-99/11, Federal Republic of Germany v Y and Z 19 April 2012, at Opinion of Advocate General Yves Bot, paras 30-86
• Emphasis added
• [161A ] (1989); 11 EHRR 439 at para 86
• Wouters, International Legal Standards for the Protection from Refoulement (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2009) at 345
• See, for example, Bader and Kanbor v Sweden 2005-XI at para 42, where the ECtHR concluded that the applicant's deportation to Syria would violate Articles 2 and 3 ECHR
• Puechavy, 'L'extradition et les risques de violation des articles 3 et 6 de la Convention par ricochet' (2002) 51 Revue trimestrielle des droits de l'homme 729
• den Heijer,'Whose Rights andWhich Rights? The Continuing Story of Non-Refoulement under the European Convention on Human Rights' (2008) 10 European Journal of Migration Law 277
• Battjes, 'The Soering Threshold:Why Only Fundamental Values Prohibit Refoulement in ECHR Case Law' (2009) 11 European Journal of Migration Law 205
• 2006-III
• R v Special Adjudicator, ex parte Ullah (Pakistan) [2004] UKHL 26
• Department of International Protection (DIP), Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status Under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, HCR/IP/4/Eng/REV. 1 Reedited (Geneva: UNHCR 1979, January 1992) at 1 para 51.
• Lauterpacht and Bethlehem,'The Scope and Content of the Principle of Non-refoulement: Opinion', in Feller, Türk and Nicholson (eds), Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR's Global Consultations on International Protection (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2003) 123, at para 123
• Mink, 'EU Asylum Law and Human Rights Protection: Revisiting the Principle of Non-refoulement and the Prohibition of Torture and Other Forms of Ill-treatment' (2012) 14 European Journal of Migration Law 131
• Goodwin-Gill and McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) at 90-1
• Carlier, Droit d'asile et des réfugiés. De la protection aux droits (Recueil des cours de l'académie de droit international de La Haye) (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2008) at 197.
• Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status (Toronto: Butterworths, 1992) at 109
• See Article 4 ICCPR for details of a valid derogation
• Article 23 UDHR
• Foster, International Refugee Law and Socio-Economic Rights. Refuge from Deprivation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2009) at 169.
• See also Crisp, 'Beyond the Nexus: UNHCR's Evolving Perspective on Refugee Protection and International Migration' (2008) 155 UNHCR Research Paper 2
• According to recent comparative research, which documents and analyses the treatment of LGBTI cases in the majority of EU Member States as well as Norway and Switzerland, this is the situation in the following Member States: Austria (mostly for bisexuals), Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Malta, Poland, Romania and Spain
• Norway and Switzerland also use the discretion requirement: see Spijkerboer and Jansen, Fleeing Homophobia: Asylum Claims Related to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Europe (Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 2011) at 34-6
• UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection: Religion-Based Refugee Claims under Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 April 2004, HCR/GIP/04/06, at para13
• UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection No 9: Claims to Refugee Status based on Sexual Orientation and/or Gender Identity within the context of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, 23 October 2012, HCR/GIP/12/09, at paras 30-33; among other judgments, see UK Supreme Court, HJ (Iran) and HT (Cameroon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC; High Court of Australia, Appellant S396/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 71; and Finland Supreme Administrative Court, Supreme Administrative Court Decision of 13 January 2012, KHO:2012:1
• References for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 27 April 2012, C-199/12, C-200/12 and C-201/12, OJ C-217/8