Third-party intervention in the case of M.B. v. Spain

Jan 15, 2016

Today, the ICJ submitted a third-party intervention in the case of M.B. v. Spain before the European Court of Human Rights.

The case arose from the attempted removal of a lesbian asylum applicant to Cameroon. The ICJ’s written submissions focus on the relevance of the Refugee Convention, as interpreted by a number of domestic courts, and the EU asylum acquis and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, to the determination of the scope and content of non-refoulement obligations under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) of those Contracting Parties that are also EU Member States.

The ICJ’s intervention, in particular, addresses the following:

• the requirement of coerced (including self-enforced) concealment of one’s same-sex sexual orientation, which constitutes persecution under refugee law and is incompatible with the ECHR, in particular Article 3; and,
• the criminalization of consensual same-sex sexual conduct, which gives rise to a real risk of Article 3 prohibited treatment, thus triggering non-refoulement obligations under that provision of the ECHR.

Spain- ECtHR MB v Spain – advocacy – legal-submissions-2016-ENG

Third-party intervention in the case of O.M. v. Hungary

Oct 21, 2015

Today, the ICJ jointly with the AIRE Centre, ECRE and ILGA-Europe submitted a third-party intervention in the case of O.M. v. Hungary before the European Court of Human Rights.

The case arose from the immigration detention in Hungary of an asylum-seeker who had fled from his country of origin, Iran, because of his homosexuality. He was detained for nearly two months before eventually being recognized as a refugee.

In their written submissions to the European Court of Human Rights, the interveners focussed on:

• the relevance of the EU asylum acquis, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, as amended by its 1967 Protocol, to the determination of the scope and content of Contracting Parties’ obligations under Art 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights; and
• the Contracting Parties’ obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights to take account of the particular risks that the detention of asylum-seekers entails, including, in particular, when deciding to detain those asylum-seekers who might have been exposed to abuse and/or may risk violence and discrimination on account of their sexual orientation while in detention.

Hungary- ECtHR OM v Hungary – advocacy – legal-submissions-2015-ENG

Third party intervention in the case of A.N. v. France before the European Court of Human Rights

Jul 8, 2015

Today, the ICJ presented its written submissions to the European Court of Human Rights in the case of A.N. v. France (Application No. 12956/15).

The case arises from the French authorities’ dismissal of an asylum application.

The ICJ’s submissions focus on:

• the obligation to ensure that the risk upon removal be assessed so as to guarantee that the protection of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the Convention’) be practical and effective;
• whether requiring coerced, including self-enforced, suppression of a fundamental aspect of one’s identity — as enforced concealment of one’s same-sex sexual orientation entails — is compatible with the Convention, in particular, Article 3;
• whether the criminalization of consensual same-sex sexual conduct gives rise to a real risk of Article 3 prohibited treatment, thus triggering non-refoulement obligations under that provision of the Convention; and
• the significance of the EU asylum acquis and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), including the joined cases Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel v X, Y and Z v Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel.

In its observations, the ICJ also drew the Court’s attention to the CJEU’s judgment in A, B, and C v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, as well as to recent Belgian and Italian superior courts’ reported decisions that have found in favour of Senegalese homosexual applicants based on, inter alia, the risk to the individuals concerned arising from Senegal’s criminalization of consensual same-sex relations and of becoming victim of homophobic crimes, including at the hands of family members, from which there is no effective state protection.

France-A.N.v.FRANCE AMICUS-Advocacy-legal submissions-2015-ENG (full text in PDF)