Hungary - Metropolitan Court, 30 September 2009, D.T. v. Office of Immigration and Nationality 17.K.33.301/2008/15
Machine-found from the cited source, not yet confirmed by a human. Open the source before relying on it.
What was at stake
EDAL summary. Subsidiary protection can be granted if on return to their country of origin an applicant would face a real risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The question at issue was whe...
What happened
The applicant, a Tibetan man, was attacked by Chinese policemen after being found with a picture of the Dalai Lama. Following this incident, he fled China through the Nepalese border. His asylum application was initially rejected by the Office of Immigration and Nationality (OIN), which denied him subsidiary protection but granted him tolerated status based on non-refoulement principles.
What the court decided
The Metropolitan Court ruled that subsidiary protection can be granted if an applicant would face a real risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return to their country of origin, and that the applicant's individual circumstances and the probabilities of risk must be assessed in determining this risk.
How the court got there
The Metropolitan Court determined that the applicant faced a real risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to China. The court emphasized the necessity of an individual assessment of the applicant's circumstances and the risks he would face, concluding that the applicant met the criteria for subsidiary protection despite the OIN's rejection.
Statutes and cases cited
- § Qualification Directive Art 15(b)
- § Hungary Act LXXX of 2007 Art 12
- § 1951 Refugee Convention Art 1A
- Hungary – Metropolitan Court, 17 December 2010, H.M.A. v. Office of Immigration and Nationality
- Hungary - Administrative and Labour Court of Budapest, 13 June 2013, M.R.D. v Office of Immigration and Nationality
Categories
Authoritative link
This is a research and reference resource, not legal advice. Summaries are prepared from public sources and may be incomplete or out of date. Always read the original judgment or document and consult a qualified lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction before acting.
Narrative summaries on this page are licensed CC BY-NC 4.0. Reuse them with attribution to JusticeHub for non-commercial purposes. Original judgments and source documents remain under their own terms; follow the authoritative link for the source of record.