CJEU on the Qualification Directive, Homosexuality and Persecution
Joined Cases C-199/12, C-200/12, C-201/12, Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel v X, Y and Z v Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel
The status of homosexuals is an extremely fascinating aspect of asylum and human rights law. Even in the freedom of western society, it is only fairly recently that homosexual, transgender and bisexual individuals have achieved parity – albeit superficially – with heterosexuals. Geography aside, gay people can be found in abundance all over the world and are routinely victimised because of their sexuality. Ultimately we are all human and of course sexual expression is inextricably linked to selfhood.
In these Dutch cases, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that sexual orientation is a fundamental part of identity and people should not have to abandon their sexuality. Similarly, criminal laws specifically targeting homosexuals clearly single them out from the rest of society.
X was from Sierra Leone where under section 61 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 homosexuality is punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment to life. Y was from Uganda where under article 145 of the Penal Code Act 1950 being gay can attract a life sentence. Z was from Senegal where under Article 319.3 of the Senegalese Penal Code a conviction for engaging in homosexual acts may result in up to 5 years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to €2000. X, Y and Z sought asylum in the Netherlands on the basis that owing to their sexuality they had a well-founded fear of persecution in their respective countries of origin. They claimed that they were treated violently by their families and repressively by the authorities. Whilst their sexual orientation was considered credible, their asylum applications were refused because it was considered that X, Y and Z failed to demonstrate that upon return to their respective homelands they would be persecuted for being members of a particular social group.
The Qualification Directive or Council Directive 2004/83/EC (the directive) envisages a full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention and affirms the principle that no one should be sent back to face persecution (sufficiently serious either by the nature or repetition of the acts of persecution as to constitute a severe violation of basic human rights) for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
Against that background, in essence, the Dutch Raad van State or Council of State, the national court in charge of hearing these cases at final instance, asked the following questions of the CJEU (1) do homosexual third country nationals comprise a particular social group in line with article 10 – reasons for persecution – of the directive (2) for the purposes of article 9 – acts of persecution – of the directive how should acts of persecution be evaluated by national authorities (3) does the criminalisation of homosexuality in Sierra Leone, Uganda and Senegal and possible imprisonment after conviction amount to persecution.
In verband met geldwolven die denken geld te kunnen claimen op krantenartikelen die op een blog als deze worden geplaatst maar na meestal een dag voor de krantenlezers aan leeswaardigheid hebben ingeboet terwijl wij vreemdelingenrecht specialisten ze soms wel nog jaren gebruiken om er een kopie van te maken voor een zaak ga ik over tot het plaatsen van alleen het eerste stukje. Ja ik weet het: de kans dat u doorklikt is geringer dan wanneer het hele artikel hier staat en een kopie van het orgineel maken handig kan zijn voor uw zaak. Wilt u zelf wat overnemen van dit weblog. Dat mag. Zet er alleen even een link bij naar het desbetreffende artikel zodat mensen niet alleen dat wat u knipt en plakt kunnen lezen maar dat ook kunnen doen in de context.
Reacties