//
you're reading...
legal issues

SUPREME COURT OF CYPRUS=political asylum application was rejected =On 24.11.2003 the Applicant, who is originally from Pakistan, applied for political asylum. The Asylum Service by letter dated 28.6.05, was invited to an interview on 25.7.05, requesting him to produce all relevant documents supporting the request. During the interview the Applicant submitted copies of various documents including marriage certificate. Follow the 1.8.05 interview with his wife. After completing the interviews, o responsible officer of the Asylum Service on 26.10.06 to a report, recommended the rejection of the application.=Finally, the Authority reasonably concluded that the Applicant does not meet the conditions to grant it the status of complementary protection for humanitarian reasons.

English: A statue of Justice on the tympanum o...

Image via Wikipedia

SUPREMECOURT OF CYPRUS

ANA THEORETICAL JURISDICTION

 

(Case No. 434/2008)

 

February 11, 2010

[Erotokritos N / facturer]

WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION

 

Raja Nadeem MUHAMEED ,

Applicant ,

n .

 

ANATHEORITIKIS AUTHORITY OF APPEAL,

Defendants of the Application.

 

 

  E. Milidoni (u) for L. Clerides for the Applicant.

 D. Nikolatou (u), for Respondent s application.

 

 

A P A P A S The

 

Erotokritos, D. : On 24.11.2003 the Applicant, who is originally from Pakistan, applied for political asylumThe Asylum Service by letter dated 28.6.05, was invited to an interview on 25.7.05, requesting him to produce all relevant documents supporting the request. During the interview the Applicant submitted copies of various documents including marriage certificate. Follow the 1.8.05 interview with his wife. After completing the interviews, o responsible officer of the Asylum Service on 26.10.06 to a report, recommended the rejection of the application. The head of the Asylum Service adopting the recommendation, decided to reject the application. The Applicant has been informed by letter dated 6.11.06.

 

On 16.11.06 filed an administrative appeal which was examined by Officer of the Refugee Review Authority, which recommended the dismissal of. The Refugee Reviewing Authority hereinafter ” the Authority “, accepting the recommendation, with the date 4.1.08 Case dismissed.

 

The Applicant after being informed, filed this action requesting the annulment of the decision of the Authority. The efpaideftos lawyer puts forward five pleas in that: (a) the decision of the Asylum Service was not justified and poorly considered contrary to the Authority, (b) the decision actually taken by the Asylum Service Officer, as Mr Kofteros simply adopted the recommendation of the Officer, without making any assessment, (c) there was a conflict of competence of the Asylum Service and the Authority, (d) the Authority rather than deal with the question marks raised by the Applicant considered from the outset of the case and took into account unrelated items which happened to be in the administrative file and (e) the decision of that authority, is unjustified.

 

None of the grounds is unfounded. These generalizations are discussed and brief words of efpaideftou counsel of the Applicant. The decision of the Asylum Service was reasoned and properly endorsed by the Authority. In its decision, the Asylum adequate reasons, in my opinion, the reasons stated the Applicant and his wife unreliable. [1]   Also the Head of Service, in accordance with normal practice, adopts the recommendation of the Officer of the and leads to rejection of the application. The reason for the decision is covered by both the record of the case, and the suggestion of the operation. That the decision of the Asylum Service signed for the head, I do not see any reason to create any problem.

 

In the second plea the Applicant complains that Mr. Kofteros by the Authority, adopted verbatim the Report of Officer of the Authority. In the same issue was involved in the case of Shah Alam Law Republic, Case No. 1516-1506, dated 9.4.08 stating that: –

 

” …. a true copy by the Reviewing Authority in its decision, excerpts from the Report of Officer leaves the best impression. But on the substantive issue, has repeatedly nomologithei that there is nothing wrong with the Authority to adopt the recommendation of the Officer if after its own investigation finds that it agrees with it. “

 

In this case it appears that o Head of the Authority, having investigated the material at its disposal, agreed with the recommendation of the Officer of the Authority, the reasoning which ultimately adopted and therefore can not be founded complaint for lack of research in terms of the Authority or evaluation the relevant data.

 

Neither the third ground of conflict of jurisdiction between the Asylum Service and the Authority accepted. The only specified in the written words of the Applicant’s attorney, is that the process provided by statute ” is unorthodox procedure if it leads to conflicts of jurisdiction, since it simultaneously provides the same power in two separate bodies of government, causing total confusion in the final effect ‘.  I do not agree. I do not see anything unusual in the procedure provided by law, which in any event been confirmed many times by the Supreme Court. Moreover, the legitimacy of hierarchical or administrative review under Article 18 of the General Principles of Administrative Law Act of 1999 (N.158 (I) / 99) and is a means of checking the legality of existing institutions and compliance mandates of the law.

 

Neither the fourth and fifth reason for cancellation justified.

 

The Authority considered all the points raised by counsel efpaideftos Applicant by letter dated. 13.11.05. For example on page 7 of Decision, the Authority deals with the complaint of the Applicant for lack of sufficient justification, and on page 8 deals with the claim of non-justification of contradictions. The examination of other issues which investigated the Authority, within the powers and discretion to the Authority under Article 28 and in particular Article 28g of the Act. The outcome of the Authority for the correctness of the decision of the Asylum Service is reasonable and the decision of the Authority in consequence, entirely reasonable and legitimate.

 

Finally, the Authority reasonably concluded that the Applicant does not meet the conditions to grant it the status of complementary protection for humanitarian reasons.

 

The appeal fails and is rejected with € 500 costs in favor of the defendants’ s application.

 

The decision confirmed under section 146.4 (a) of the Constitution.

 

 

 

 

                                                               (Min.) C. Erotokritou, D.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/ AI


 

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,850,421 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,901 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com