Source: https://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en/case-law/spain-supreme-court-4-june-2010-29872010
Timestamp: 2019-08-21 22:34:15
Document Index: 663040519

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art 12', 'Art 13', 'Art 13', 'Art 19', 'Art 24', 'Art 8', 'Art1', 'Art. 33']

Spain - Supreme Court, 4 June 2010, 2987/2010 | European Database of Asylum Law
2987/2010
Exclusion from protection, Non-refoulement, Standard of proof, Terrorism
ICCPR - Art 12
ICCPR - Art 13
Spain - Constitution - Art 13
Spain - Constitution - Art 19
Spain - Constitution - Art 24
Sp 18.pdf
The applicant, from Tunisia, claimed asylum in Spain in 2004. The application was refused by the Ministry of Interior and by the High National Court. Both negative decisions were based on the application of Art 8.2 of the Spanish Asylum Law, 12/2009, which provides for exclusion from refugee status where there are reasonable grounds for regarding the applicant as a danger to national security (connected with Art1F and Art. 33.2 of the 1951 Refugee Convention). The applicant was considered to be a danger to national security due to his alleged membership of an extremist organisation.
The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court claiming that the High National Court had applied an exception to the principle of non-refoulement.
The applicant argued that this unique exception required that the applicant had to be considered as a danger to national security and that “reasonable grounds” must be established. The applicant stated that there were no “reasonable grounds” to prove the danger alleged.
The Court stated that it was not necessary to prove membership of a terrorist organisation by means of conclusive evidence. Thus, the fact that an organisation was or was not recorded as a terrorist organisation was not a relevant factor, what had to be examined was whether the applicant constituted a danger to Spanish security. Moreover, the Court affirmed that there were precedent judicial decisions refusing refugee status to members of the same extremist organisation.
Secondly, the Court held that the danger alleged was sufficiently proven when reports issued by the National Intelligence Centre were taken into account. These reports stated that the applicant had worked for a member of Al-Qaida who was detained in Spain as a result of the September 11th terrorist attacks.
The Supreme Court held that the precedent decision was not revoked and that the application of the exclusion clause was maintained.