Hungary - Metropolitan Court, 23 September 2009, M.A.A. v. Office of Immigration and Nationality, 21.K.31484/2009/6
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. The Office of Immigration and Nationality (OIN) found the applicant not credible and therefore did not assess the risk of serious harm. Instead the OIN granted protection against refoulement. The Metr...
What happened
The applicant, a Somali national, claimed asylum due to discrimination on the grounds of belonging to an unprivileged tribe, including forced labour and robbery by members of superior tribes. He was granted tolerated status based on the principle of non-refoulement after his asylum application was rejected.
What the court decided
The Metropolitan Court held that the Office of Immigration and Nationality must conduct an individual assessment of the risk of serious harm and cannot rely solely on the applicant's credibility; consequently it annulled the OIN's decision on serious harm and ordered a new procedure to assess subsidiary protection.
How the court got there
The Metropolitan Court decided that the Office of Immigration and Nationality must conduct an individual assessment of the risk of serious harm, considering all relevant facts and the applicant's personal circumstances, as per Article 4 of the Qualification Directive. The Court applied the Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, specifically the Elgafaji case, which examined the notion of generalised violence and indiscriminate violence.
Statutes and cases cited
- § Qualification Directive art. 4
- § Qualification Directive art. 15
- § 1951 Refugee Convention art. 1A(2)
- Elgafaji
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 Summaries are prepared from public sources and may be incomplete or out of date.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.