No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);No violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

Aleš Pejchal;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger

The applicant is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE LAW ( Gesetz über die eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft ) entered into force and introduced civil unions for same - sex couples .

On DATE the applicant entered into a civil partnership with Mr PERSON , né V.

On DATE Mr PERSON , né PERSON , died .

In DATE the applicant applied for a survivor ’s pension to ORG ( GPE für ORG ) , a public - law corporation .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim and on DATE it dismissed the administrative appeal lodged by the applicant against that decision .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for judicial review . He argued that the term “ widow or widower ” in LAW , ORG ( LOC . ORG ) should be construed as encompassing the surviving partner in a civil partnership .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim . According to the court the surviving partner in a civil partnership could not be called a “ widower ” in the generally accepted sense of the term . Furthermore , the applicant ’s civil partnership had not lasted DATE , which would have led to statutory exclusion from the benefit even for married couples .

During the appeal proceedings the respondent acknowledged the applicant ’s claim to a survivor ’s pension as of DATE , when the relevant amendments to LAW became effective .

The remaining leapfrog appeal on points of law ( Sprungrevision ) was dismissed on DATE by ORG . The court pointed out that the respondent had partly acknowledged the applicant ’s claim , so that the appeal concerned only the period from DATE until DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) with ORG .

On DATE the ORG delivered its judgment in a case ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL , hereinafter “ the DATE case ” ) which had been brought in DATE concerning the pension rights of a surviving partner in a civil partnership . It found that denying a partner in a civil union the right to a survivor ’s pension from the civil servants’ pension scheme , when the legislature had already amended LAW and CARDINAL of LAW , Book VI , in respect of the general pension scheme , violated the principle of non - discrimination as set down in LAW .

On DATE the applicant pointed to the above - mentioned judgment and requested a decision to the same effect .

On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG decided not to review the applicant ’s constitutional complaint . In its reasoning the panel explained that the complaint did not raise a pressing constitutional question as the relevant provision of the social security legislation had meanwhile been amended . Even assuming that the legislative provision concerned had violated the LAW , ORG could not have afforded redress as the legislature could not be required to amend a provision that had already become void .

On DATE the applicant was served with a copy of the decision .

On DATE the Government informed the ORG that in response to the pilot judgment in GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) an Act on Protracted Court Proceedings and Criminal Investigations ( PERSON über den GPE bei überlangen PERSON ORG ) had been published in ORG and had entered into force on DATE .

NORP In DATE the ORG informed the applicant of the enactment of the new domestic remedy and drew his attention to the transitional provision of that LAW . Referring to the ORG v. GPE case ( ( dec . ) , no . MONEY , ECHR CARDINALIX ) , the ORG invited the applicant to inform it whether he intended to make use of the new remedy within the time - limit set by the transitional provision in question .

The applicant informed the ORG that he intended to file a complaint under the new domestic provisions .

On DATE the applicant filed a complaint under LAW , claiming compensation in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage . He complained that constitutional court proceedings that lasted DATE , DATE and DATE were excessively long , even taking the position and function of ORG into account . He pointed out that his case could not be considered a particularly difficult CARDINAL .

NORP In the course of the proceedings the judge rapporteur for the constitutional complaint submitted a statement explaining that when he took office and became judge rapporteur for this complaint on DATE it had already been agreed between his predecessor and judge PERSON , who was judge rapporteur for the DATE case ( compare paragraph CARDINAL , above ) , that the handling of the applicant ’s complaint should be postponed until the DATE case had been determined . Subsequently , it became clear that the DATE case did not pose a problem of retroactivity and therefore did not affect the outcome of the applicant ’s constitutional complaint . The judge rapporteur conceded that the applicant ’s submissions were sufficiently substantiated for his constitutional complaint to indeed have been dealt with earlier on the basis of the actual reasoning given . However , the judge maintained that it had been in the applicant ’s best interest to wait for the court ’s ruling in the DATE case .

The applicant replied that the judge rapporteur ’s statement demonstrated that his constitutional complaint had not been given any attention whatsoever in DATE after it was lodged . It would have been obvious even from a cursory examination of the constitutional complaints that his complaint concerned the retroactive application of a legislative amendment . Therefore , any proper comparison of his case with the DATE case would have easily shown that the CARDINAL cases were not interdependent .

On DATE the complaints panel of ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint under section PERSON of ORG . Citing PERSON and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALII ) , as well as PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) , ORG noted that a chronic backlog of cases in the constitutional courts could not justify the excessive length of proceedings . However , when assessing whether the duration of proceedings was excessive , ORG had to consider its special function and position . Unlike the ordinary courts , the capacity and structure of a ORG were laid down in the LAW and it served further purposes beyond the administration of individual justice . The scope for adaptation and for the acceleration of proceedings was therefore limited . Furthermore , decisions and judgments of ORG had binding inter omnes legal effect and for this reason had to be drafted with the utmost diligence . The court further explained that it was in the nature of constitutional court proceedings that chronological case management was of subordinate importance . Concerning the applicant ’s case , the court noted that the actual duration of the proceedings DATE was unusually long , but not excessive . For the purposes of its examination ORG noted that CARDINAL phases could be distinguished : ( a ) the phase of over DATE between the lodging of the constitutional complaint and the decision to await the outcome of the DATE case ; ( b ) the phase of DATE until a decision had been given in the DATE case ; and ( c ) the phase of DATE until the constitutional complaint at issue had been determined . A new judge rapporteur had stepped in at the end of his predecessor ’s term of office and his predecessor had had to finish cases of higher priority than that of the applicant . The court maintained that the DATE wait in accordance with section CARDINALb § CARDINAL of ORG had not been excessive considering that ORG had opted to rule on a similar case concerning the pension rights of surviving partners in a civil union ( the DATE case ) before the applicant ’s case . The court pointed out that , although in hindsight the present case could have been decided without reference to the “ pilot case ” , the CARDINAL cases shared sufficient similarities to justify the decision of the former judge rapporteur . Nothing indicated that the decision to postpone the applicant ’s case pending a decision on the DATE case had been based on arbitrary considerations . The court noted that the applicant had never claimed that the sum of money at issue was of extraordinary financial importance to him . In conclusion , ORG argued that after the decision in the DATE case the applicant ’s constitutional complaint had been determined in due time , without any delay .

The Act on Protracted Court Proceedings and Criminal Investigations ( Gesetz über den Rechtsschutz bei überlangen PERSON , “ the LAW ” ) was published in LAW I , DATE , pp . CARDINAL et seq . – on DATE and entered into force DATE .

The Remedy Act introduced general provisions instituting a remedy against any kind of protracted court proceedings . Section CARDINAL applied to criminal and civil proceedings – for details see PERSON v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL et seq . , CARDINAL DATE , and PERSON v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL et seq . , CARDINAL DATE .

For proceedings before ORG , LAW amended LAW as follows :

“ Section PERSON

( CARDINAL ) Any person who , as the result of the unreasonable length of proceedings before ORG , experiences a disadvantage as a participant in those proceedings or as a participant in proceedings suspended for the purpose of obtaining a decision from ORG shall be afforded reasonable compensation . The reasonableness of the length of proceedings shall be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the particular case , having due regard to the functions and the position of ORG .

( CARDINAL ) A non - pecuniary disadvantage shall be presumed in cases where proceedings before ORG have been of unreasonable length . Compensation may be claimed therefor save in particular cases where reparation by other means , such as the mere finding that the length of proceedings was unreasonable , is sufficient . Such compensation shall amount to € CARDINAL for DATE of delay . If the sum thus calculated is not equitable , the ORG shall assess a higher or lower sum .

Section CARDINALb

( CARDINAL ) A decision on compensation and reparation shall be rendered if a complaint of undue delay has been lodged with ORG . A complaint of undue delay shall be admissible only if the complainant has previously objected to the length of the proceedings before ORG ( PERSON ) .

A complaint of undue delay shall be lodged in writing and it shall set out the circumstances purported to establish the unreasonableness of the length of the proceedings . It shall be admissible DATE at the earliest after the case has been lodged with ORG . A complaint of undue delay shall not require a reasoned notification .

Section CARDINALd

( CARDINAL ) The rapporteur in the proceedings concerned shall submit an opinion within DATE of receipt of the reasons for the complaint of undue delay .

( CARDINAL ) The complaints panel shall decide by a majority . In the event of a tie the complaint of undue delay shall be dismissed . The complaints panel shall render its decision without an oral hearing . Reasons need not be given .

( CARDINAL ) The decision is not subject to appeal . ”

In a departure from the general transitional provision under section CARDINAL of LAW ( see for details GPE , § DATE , and PERSON , § DATE , both cited above ) , section PERSON of the amended LAW stipulated that , in the case of terminated proceedings whose length might still become or had already become the subject of a complaint before that court , it was not necessary to raise a complaint of undue delay ( GPE ) prior to filing a complaint claiming compensation . That complaint had to be lodged with ORG by DATE at the latest .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .

The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)

The applicant was born in DATE .

On DATE a deputy prosecutor in GPE , GPE , added the applicant ’s name to the list of fugitives from justice and issued an arrest warrant on suspicion of human trafficking with the purpose of sexual exploitation .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE .

On DATE ORG in GPE ordered the applicant ’s detention pending extradition , referring to ORG and CARDINAL of LAW but without setting a time - limit .

On DATE the NORP Prosecutor General ’s office received a request for the applicant ’s extradition from his counterpart in GPE .

On CARDINAL DATE the deputy ORG ordered the applicant ’s extradition to GPE .

The applicant challenged the extradition order before ORG . On DATE ORG found that the extradition order was lawful . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the decision on appeal .

On DATE the applicant was extradited to GPE .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

She has been living with her daughter and brother in a flat in the GPE area since DATE . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , served on DATE , the GPE mediation commission , finding that the applicant and her relatives were housed in indecent and insalubrious conditions , earmarked their case as a priority for urgent rehousing .

As she had not received any offer of accommodation taking account of her needs and capacities DATE after the date of that decision , the applicant lodged an application with ORG seeking an order for the ORG to provide her with housing , on pain of a fine .

On DATE ORG upheld her application and instructed the prefect of the Île - de - France region to rehouse the applicant , her daughter and her brother , on pain of a fine of CARDINAL ( ORG ) , payable to the urban development fund for the Île - de - GPE region , for each DATE ’s delay from DATE . ORG found as follows :

“ It emerges from the investigation that a safety architect employed by the GPE Police Commissioner ’s Office noted on DATE that the kitchen ceiling in the flat occupied by [ the applicant ] , her daughter and her brother was in a dangerous state as it was unstable and weak . Her request should therefore be granted as a matter of particular urgency . ”

On DATE , as the applicant had still not been rehoused , ORG assessed the interim amount of the fine for the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and ordered the ORG to pay ORG CARDINAL into the urban development fund for the Île - de - GPE region .

As matters stand , the applicant and her family have still not been rehoused .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in the GPE . The President granted the applicant ’s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr R.A.A. Böcker , of ORG .

NORP summarised as follows .

On DATE the applicant applied for asylum in the GPE . On DATE he was interviewed about his identity , nationality and travel route .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was interviewed about his asylum account ( nader gehoor ) . He claimed inter alia that he had not seen his wife and their CARDINAL children DATE and that he had been a professional military officer . DATE when the PERSON came to power – he had worked for the ORG / WAD ( ORG Atal - at - e Dowlati / PERSON ) . In DATE he had also become a member of ORG of GPE ; ORG ) . In DATE , in order to flee the unstable situation in GPE and the PERSON , the applicant and his family had moved to PERSON - i - Sharif . After the second ORG invasion of FAC on DATE , his problems had started . He had been arrested by CARDINAL armed ORG , he had been kicked , beaten and taken to a house . Suddenly the ORG had left . As the door of the house had been unlocked , the applicant had simply walked off . He had then fled to an uncle with whom he had stayed . On DATE the ORG had raided his uncle ’s house . The applicant had been taken by them and held at a control post where he had been ill - treated under questioning . He had been released on DATE after his uncle had managed to bribe some ORG . Fearing that he would be killed in GPE on account of his work for ORG , his ORG membership and his NORP ethnic origins , the applicant had fled to the GPE where he arrived on DATE .

In DATE the applicant converted to NORP and was baptised .

On an unspecified date the applicant ’s wife and their CARDINAL eldest children travelled to the GPE and applied for asylum . They were granted asylum and on an unspecified subsequent date were granted NORP citizenship . A third child has been born to the applicant and his wife in the GPE .

On DATE the Minister for ORG ( Minister PERSON Integratie ; “ the Minister ” ) issued an intention ( voornemen ) to reject the applicant ’s asylum application and to hold LAW against him . The Minister based this decision on the applicant ’s statements about his career from DATE as an officer in the ORG in which he had last held the rank of major , and on a general official report ( algemeen ambtsbericht ) , drawn up on DATE by ORG ( GPE PERSON ) on “ ORG in NORP GPE ( DATE ) . AGSA , ORG , ORG and ORG ( “ PERSON in communistisch GPE ( DATE ) , AGSA , ORG , ORG en WAD ” ) On the basis of this report , the GPE immigration authorities adopted the position that LAW could be held against virtually every NORP asylum seeker who , holding the rank of third lieutenant or higher , had worked during the communist regime for the ORG .

On DATE the applicant submitted his written comments on the intention ( zienswijze ) , arguing that it would be unjust to hold Article CARDINAL against him as he did not have personal knowledge of the crimes committed by the ORG and he had never participated in such crimes .

On DATE an additional interview ( aanvullend gehoor ) was held with the applicant , mainly about his conversion to NORP and whether his expulsion to GPE would expose him to a real and personal risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to LAW .

NORP By letter of DATE , following the additional interview of CARDINAL DATE , the Deputy Minister of Justice ( Staatssecretaris van Justitie ; “ the Deputy Minister ” ; the successor to the Minister for ORG ) notified the applicant of her intention to reject his asylum application by holding LAW against him . The Deputy Minister held that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that he , if expelled to GPE , would be exposed to a real and personal risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to LAW . According to the official report of ORG of DATE not all former members of the ORG ran such a risk . The applicant had failed to establish that specific groups were looking for him . Furthermore , it could not be said that his conversion to NORP would give rise to such a risk . The Deputy Minister further notified the applicant of her intention to impose an exclusion order ( ongewenstverklaring ) on him .

On DATE the applicant submitted his written comments on the intention . He argued that he had a real and personal risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to LAW upon return to GPE as the ORG were looking for him , because of his involvement in the ORG as well as because of his conversion to NORP which was known in GPE .

By decision of CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s asylum application was refused by the Deputy Minister , LAW being held against him on account of his involvement with the ORG . In addition , an exclusion order was imposed on him . As regards LAW , the Deputy Minister concluded that the applicant had not established that he had a well - founded fear of being exposed to a real risk of treatment prohibited by this provision .

On DATE the applicant filed an appeal with ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE against the rejection of his asylum request and , on DATE , he lodged an objection ( bezwaar ) with the Deputy Minister against the imposition of the exclusion order .

The Deputy Minister rejected this objection on DATE and , on DATE , the applicant filed an appeal against this decision with ORG of The Hague .

By judgment of DATE ORG of The GPE sitting in PERSON declared inadmissible the applicant ’s appeal against the rejection of his asylum application . As under domestic law an alien can not have legal residence if an exclusion order has been imposed , ORG found that the applicant had no legal interest in a determination of his appeal . On DATE , the applicant filed a further appeal with ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) .

In its judgment of DATE , ORG of The GPE sitting in PERSON rejected the applicant ’s appeal against the exclusion order . On DATE , the applicant filed a further appeal with ORG .

On DATE , at the request of the applicant , the ORG decided to indicate to the Government of the GPE that it was desirable in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the ORG not to remove the applicant to GPE ( Rule CARDINAL of ORG ) until DATE .

On DATE the ORG prolonged the measure under LAW until further notice . On that same date the Government were invited to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the case .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal against the judgment of DATE . In this ruling , the ORG held that the alleged violation of the applicant ’s rights under LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW on account of his expulsion from the GPE were to be determined in the still pending proceedings concerning the imposition of the exclusion order . No further appeal lay against this ruling .

On DATE , the Deputy Minister withdrew her decision of DATE in which she had rejected the applicant ’s objection of CARDINAL DATE against the imposition of the exclusion order . As the object of the administrative appeal proceedings had thus ceased to exist , ORG decided on DATE to declare inadmissible the applicant ’s further appeal of CARDINAL DATE .

In a fresh decision taken on CARDINAL DATE and a pertaining addendum of CARDINAL DATE , the Deputy Minister again rejected the applicant ’s objection of DATE . The Deputy Minister considered that , as LAW was being held against him , the applicant could be considered as constituting a danger to national security . However , the Deputy Minister did accept that the applicant , if removed to GPE , would be exposed to a real and personal risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of LAW upon return to GPE . However , this could not lead to the applicant being granted a residence permit .

The applicant filed an appeal against this decision with ORG of The Hague . On DATE , this appeal was heard before ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE . It decided to adjourn the appeal to allow the Minister for ORG ( Minister PERSON , ORG ; the successor to the Deputy Minister of Justice ) to replace the exclusion order by an entry ban within the meaning of Directive CARDINAL/CARDINAL/EC of DATE ( on common standards and procedures in Member GPE for returning illegally staying third - country nationals ) . The appeal before ORG is presumably still pending as no further information about these proceedings has been submitted .

On DATE ORG of ORG ( “ ECJ ” ) gave judgment in Joined Cases C-CARDINAL/CARDINAL and C-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , PERSON GPE v Y and PERSON In this judgment the ECJ held that for the purpose of determining which acts of interference with freedom of religion may be regarded as constituting persecution , it is unnecessary to distinguish acts that interfere with the ‘ core ORG ( ‘ forum internum’ ) of the basic right to freedom of religion , which do not include religious activities in public , from acts which do not affect those purported ‘ core ORG . According to the ECJ , acts which may constitute a ‘ severe violation’ within the meaning of LAW of DATE on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or ORG persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection guaranteed ( “ the LAW ” ) include serious acts which interfere with one ’s freedom not only to practice one ’s faith in private circles but also to live that faith publicly .

On DATE ORG handed down a ruling , in proceedings unconnected to the applicant , in which it applied the ECJ judgment of DATE .

NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG were requested to inform the ORG what , if any , practical consequences they drew from the rulings of CARDINAL DATE and DATE in relation to the pending case .

In its reply of CARDINAL DATE the Government requested the ORG to strike the application out of the list of pending cases , submitting the following :

“ By decision of DATE it was established that the applicant runs a real risk of treatment contrary to LAW upon returning to GPE . Consequently , the applicant will not be removed to GPE . Since LAW applies to him , the applicant is not eligible for an asylum permit . This conclusion is unaffected by the judgment delivered by ORG of ORG on DATE . ”

In his comments of DATE , the applicant objected to the ORG ’s request to strike the application out of the list of cases .

The relevant domestic law and practice as regards asylum proceedings , exclusion orders and enforcement of removals are set out in PERSON the GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .


Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE . He is currently living in the GPE . The Acting President decided that the applicant ’s identity should not be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .

NORP The applicant was born in LOC and is of NORP ethnicity . Like the majority of the population in GPE , he was a NORP . He entered the GPE on DATE and lodged a first asylum application on DATE , submitting , inter alia , that he had fled his village of origin following a dispute between his family and a local warlord over landownership , in the course of which his father and brother had fallen victim to vendetta killings and the applicant ’s life had been threatened . It appears that that asylum application and a consecutive second asylum application lodged in DATE ended unsuccessfully for the applicant , with the relevant authorities considering that the applicant ’s statements about the killing of his father and brother lacked credibility . Stating that these first CARDINAL asylum proceedings are unrelated to the present application , the applicant has not submitted any further documents in this regard other than copies of reports from his first CARDINAL interviews with ORG ( Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst ) . It nevertheless appears from the other documents in the file that the first asylum request was rejected on DATE and that the appeal against that decision was upheld on DATE . The request was once more rejected on DATE , and the subsequent appeal dismissed on DATE . The second asylum application was rejected on DATE and the appeal against that decision was dismissed on DATE . It further appears that , although possible , no further appeal was lodged in the proceedings on either the first or the second asylum request .

On DATE the applicant lodged a fresh asylum application . Interviews were held with him by ORG on DATE and DATE . The applicant submitted DATE in addition to his previous submissions regarding the local warlord in his village of origin – that he had converted to NORP during his stay in the GPE and that , as a consequence , he ran an additional real and individual risk of treatment contrary to LAW if he were to return to GPE . In support of his claim , the applicant submitted a baptism certificate dated DATE issued by ORG in GPE . He further submitted , inter alia , that his first encounter with the NORP religion had been in a reception centre for asylum - seekers . He had visited a church for the first time out of curiosity in DATE together with NORP . While staying in different facilities , the applicant had gradually started to gain more NORP acquaintances ; they had brought him a Bible and other reading material about the NORP religion , not only in NORP but also in PERSON and PERSON . The Bible had helped him particularly when he had been placed in immigration detention . He considered that love was the essence of the NORP religion , and in his daily life he tried to abide by the rules set out by PERSON , for example to love people and to treat them well .

On DATE the Deputy Minister of Justice ( Staatssecretaris van Justitie ) notified the applicant of her intention ( voornemen ) to reject his asylum application as she found his conversion to NORP not credible . The Deputy Minister noted that it appeared from the applicant ’s submissions that he had already been interested in NORP in DATE , an interest which had grown in the course of DATE and in particular through his contacts with another NORP convert DATE and DATE . Yet he had nevertheless failed to mention such interest in the course of the proceedings on either his first asylum application or his second , and in those latter proceedings he had been registered as a NORP – albeit a non - practising one – without the applicant giving any indication of his interest in a different religion . It also did not appear from the file relating to the applicant ’s immigration detention that he had developed an interest in NORP and neither had he made any mention of such in meetings with ORG ( PERSON ) of ORG and ORG .

In his comments ( zienswijze ) on the Deputy Minister ’s intended refusal of his asylum application , the applicant submitted , inter alia , that he had replied “ no ” when he was asked in the interview pursuant to his second asylum application whether he was a practising NORP . As he had not yet been baptised at that time , he had felt unable to say that he was a NORP . Moreover , when he had tried to explain to the officer of ORG for what reasons he was unable to return to GPE , he had been told that that ORG was not concerned with such issues .

NORP The Deputy Minister was not persuaded by the applicant ’s comments and rejected the asylum request on DATE . In addition to the fact that the applicant ’s alleged conversion was not believed , the Deputy Minister further considered that the alleged problems in the applicant ’s village of origin had already been found to lack credibility in the previous asylum proceedings , while neither the applicant ’s ethnicity nor the general security situation in GPE gave rise to an assumption that he would be at risk of any treatment contrary to LAW if he were to return to that country ( taking into account that NORP constituted the majority of the population of LOC where the applicant hailed from ) .

The applicant lodged an appeal against the Deputy Minister ’s decision . In these proceedings , the Deputy Minister submitted , inter alia , that she considered it remarkable that the applicant , while he had been held in immigration detention , had made no mention of his interest in NORP or of the problems which might arise as a result if he were expelled , yet he had been baptised DATE after his release from detention . The Deputy Minister considered it likely that the applicant had let himself be baptised for effect only and found it implausible that he had genuinely converted .

Following a hearing on DATE , which was held in the presence of the applicant and counsel , ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on DATE . It held that , pursuant to the case - law of ORG of ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State , hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) , it could only review the impugned decision if the applicant had based his latest request for asylum on newly emerged facts or altered circumstances or if a relevant change in the law had occurred . ORG agreed with the Deputy Minister ’s finding that , notwithstanding the baptism certificate and an affidavit of the officiating minister ( voorganger ) of ORG ( to the effect that the applicant was an active member of that church ) , which had been submitted by the applicant , he had failed to demonstrate convincingly that he had converted to NORP . This being the case , the alleged conversion could not be seen as constituting a newly emerged fact or altered circumstance . ORG further held that the applicant had also not submitted any other arguments or documents on the basis of which the rejection of his earlier asylum application ought to be reconsidered .

A further appeal lodged by the applicant was dismissed by the ORG on DATE on summary grounds .

On DATE the applicant lodged yet another asylum application , about which he was interviewed by ORG on DATE . He submitted DATE in addition to his previous submissions – that his NORP beliefs had intensified , that he had been attending church services and Bible lessons and that he had converted others . He further submitted , inter alia , a certificate of attendance of a Bible studies course and a new affidavit of the officiating minister of ORG dated DATE , stating that the applicant was a member of that church who attended its services , and affidavits of CARDINAL NORP stating that they had been converted by the applicant . Furthermore , he claimed that he had received threats from other NORP in the GPE and in GPE via telephone after he had told his mother , a nephew and others about his conversion and had tried to convert them . Lastly , the applicant referred to the deteriorating general security situation in GPE .

On DATE , the Minister for ORG ( Minister PERSON Integratie ; the successor to the Deputy Minister of ORG as regards immigration matters ) rejected the asylum request , considering that the documents submitted by the applicant could not be regarded as evidence of the applicant ’s true conversion and holding that the applicant was ( still ) unable to provide an insight into the motivational process that had led to his alleged conversion . The assertion that his conversion had become known in GPE was dismissed , as the Minister found the applicant ’s statements in this regard inconsistent . Lastly , the Minister noted as a negative against the applicant that although he had had the opportunity to submit this information already during his previous asylum proceedings , he had failed to do so . As the applicant had thus still not made a plausible case for believing that his conversion was genuine , the Minister concluded that he was not eligible for asylum . Concerning the security situation in GPE , particularly in the applicant ’s home town of GPE , the Minister considered that although this might have deteriorated , it had not reached a level in which an LAW risk was to be assumed on account of a person ’s mere presence in that place . The applicant lodged an appeal against the Minister ’s decision .

At a hearing held before ORG on DATE in the presence of the applicant and counsel , CARDINAL members of ORG called as witnesses for the applicant testified about the latter ’s church activities . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal , concurring with the Minister that his submissions did not repair the lack of credibility and lack of insight given regarding the motivational process around his alleged conversion , which had been observed in the previous asylum proceedings . ORG concluded that the applicant had neither submitted any newly emerged facts or altered circumstances nor such exceptional circumstances relating to LAW that it would be justified to proceed to a review of the impugned decision .

The applicant lodged a further appeal with the ORG .

On DATE , the applicant was placed in immigration detention for removal purposes . Additionally , on that same day , a return decision ( terugkeerbesluit ) was taken and an entry ban ( inreisverbod ) of DATE was imposed on the applicant by the Deputy Minister of Security and ORG ( Staatssecretaris PERSON Justitie ; the successor to the Minister for ORG as regards immigration matters ) .

The application was lodged with the ORG on DATE and subsequently , on DATE , the applicant asked the ORG to issue an interim measure under LAW staying his removal until his further appeal with the ORG and his application with the ORG had been decided upon .

On DATE , the Acting President of the Section decided to reject the request for an interim measure .

According to a letter received by ORG , the further appeal by the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was dismissed by the ORG on DATE .

From a letter of the Deputy Minister of Security and ORG , dated DATE and addressed to Mr PERSON , a member of ORG ( ORG ) lower house parliamentary party ( ORG ) , it appears that the latter had , on DATE , asked the Deputy Minister to reconsider the applicant ’s asylum request . Mr Voordewind had apparently noted that the applicant had started attending a different church DATE , namely the Hope for GPE ) church in GPE , and that that church did not readily issue statements on request when it concerned asylum - seekers ; however , it had been happy to do so for the applicant who had been very active in that church . Furthermore , PERSON had seemingly expressed his disagreement with the finding ( in the latest decision rejecting the applicant ’s asylum request ) that the applicant had not submitted any new facts or circumstances , urging that further research or a counter appraisal of the credibility of the applicant ’s conversion should be performed in the given circumstances . The Deputy Minister replied in that letter that he saw no circumstances which gave rise to a need for a reconsideration of the refusal of the applicant ’s asylum request , but that the applicant would be invited to lodge a fresh asylum request .

On DATE the applicant lodged a fifth asylum request and an interview was held with him that DATE . The applicant submitted , inter alia , that he had been a NORP and an active member of a church for DATE now , that all of his family members in GPE knew about his conversion , and that his NORP belief had intensified even more since he had been attending the Hope for NORP church . In support of this claim , the applicant submitted an affidavit of the officiating minister and deacon ( diaken ) of the Hope for NORP church of DATE , attesting , inter alia , to the fact that the applicant had been an active member of that church since DATE , attending church services DATE ; that they were convinced of the applicant ’s sincere NORP belief ; that their church was familiar with the fact that asylum - seekers might abuse it in order to obtain a residence permit ; and that they were therefore very careful in giving statements .

NORP The applicant further submitted a “ Report Concerning the Credibility of Conversion ” ( Rapport Inzake PERSON ) , dated CARDINAL DATE and drawn up in NORP by Professor PERSON of ORG ( Vrije Universiteit ) of GPE , a theology professor and a psychologist of religion . This report contains an assessment of the credibility of the applicant ’s conversion to NORP and commences with a general part in which definitions , different stages and types of conversion are described , followed by an elaboration of the analysis and classification of the credibility of conversion , all with references to other scientific reports . The second part of the report comprises an analysis of the applicant ’s conversion based on his case file , that is to say all the records of interviews held with the applicant and all the decisions taken by the administrative and judicial authorities in the course of the proceedings concerning the applicant ’s third and fourth asylum requests . The analysis entails an assessment of those documents based on CARDINAL questions through which the type of conversion is classified and the symptoms of different stages are compared for consistency to the assessed type ; the departure from the previous religion and the motivations for conversion are compared to the way in which that process has been expressed and CARDINAL dimensions ( affection , cognisance , behaviour ) of conversion are assessed for consistency . The conclusion of this report , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

“ Based on the criteria concerning internal and external consistency , I find [ the applicant ] ’s conversion credible . It appears to concern an active conversion ( as opposed to a passive conversion ) in which a change of religious beliefs occurs after a change in behaviour instigated by a crisis during which the convert experiences a lack of purpose . The different stages of the so - called ‘ PERSON ( pertaining to an active convert ) are clearly recognisable . The motivations are consistent with the way they are expressed and the CARDINAL dimensions of conversion are clearly visible and consistent with the religion he has converted to . ”

Lastly , the applicant submitted an affidavit of DATE from the preacher of the GPE detention centre for asylum - seekers , attesting , inter alia , that the applicant was a NORP , that he had converted other asylum - seekers and that he attended church every DATE including going to Bible - study groups .

By decision of DATE the Deputy Minister rejected the asylum request , considering that there were no newly emerged facts or circumstances . The Deputy Minister took the view that since the documents submitted by the applicant ( the abovementioned report on credibility as well as the affidavits ) had been drawn up at the applicant ’s request they could not be regarded as legally relevant new facts . With regard to Professor PERSON credibility report , the Deputy Minister considered that it could have been drawn up and submitted in previous asylum proceedings , which the applicant had failed to do without giving reasons as to why this had not been possible . Moreover , the fact that the report had been based on documents and that no assessment in person had been carried out discredited , in the Deputy Minister ’s view , the value of the report . Lastly , the Deputy Minister observed that the report presupposed the alleged vendetta killings of the applicant ’s father and brother as a basis for the crisis experienced by the applicant , but that that account of events had been found to lack credence in the proceedings in the applicant ’s first application for asylum .

On DATE the Repatriation and Departure Service of ORG and ORG informed the applicant ’s lawyer that a charter flight to GPE , GPE , had been arranged for the applicant ’s removal , scheduled for DATE .

The applicant lodged an appeal against the Deputy Minister ’s rejection with ORG , accompanied by a request for a provisional measure ( voorlopige voorziening ) in order to stay his removal pending appeal . When filing his grounds of appeal , the applicant supplemented the above - mentioned documents which he had submitted in support of his fifth asylum request with a report entitled “ Assessment of Conversion ” ( Toetsing Bekering ) of DATE and drawn up by PERSON of ORG ( PERSON ) , an interdenominational organisation supporting churches in their contacts with refugees and asylum seekers . That report concluded that in view of , inter alia , Professor PERSON report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) strong reasons for a reconsideration of the applicant ’s asylum application existed .

A hearing took place before the provisional - measures judge ( voorzieningenrechter ) of ORG of GPE , sitting in GPE , on DATE , in the presence of the applicant and counsel .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG for the second time to issue an interim measure under Rule DATE .

On DATE the provisional - measures judge of ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and rejected the request for a provisional measure . Noting that the impugned decision of the Deputy Minister was substantially similar to the decisions on the applicant ’s earlier asylum applications , the provisional - measures judge set out the applicable framework for his review as follows :

“ CARDINAL.CARDINAL It follows from the ne bis in idem principle that , if after an earlier negative decision a substantially similar decision is taken , it is at the outset to be assumed that the administrative court is not allowed to review the latter decision as if it were a first rejection . That decision , its reasoning and the manner in which it came about can only be reviewed by the administrative court if the alien adduced newly emerged facts or altered circumstances in the administrative stage , or if it follows from the alien ’s submissions that a change in the law , relevant to his situation , has occurred . It is only when exceptional facts and circumstances within the meaning of paragraph CARDINAL of ORG Rights’ judgment of DATE ( ORG v. the GPE [ Reports of Judgments and Decisions DATE ] ) pertain , relating to the individual case , that the above does not apply .

CARDINAL NORP The provisional - measures judge will examine ex officio whether the request is based on newly emerged facts or altered circumstances . These include facts and circumstances which have occurred after the previous decision was taken or which could not have been adduced prior to the taking of that decision , as well as documents supporting already previously adduced facts or circumstances which it was not possible to submit prior to the earlier decision . Such newly emerged facts or altered circumstances will not , however , justify a new judicial examination if it is from the outset excluded that that which has been adduced or submitted is incapable of detracting from the earlier decision . ”

The provisional - measures judge proceeded to uphold the Deputy Minister ’s point of view that the applicant had failed to establish the existence of newly emerged facts or altered circumstances . He considered , inter alia , that the report of DATE from ORG was of too general a nature . With regard to the applicant ’s alleged intensified beliefs and activities in his church , it was considered that this argument had already been submitted in previous asylum applications and that the applicant had failed to repair the lack of insight given regarding the motivational process leading to his alleged conversion . As regards Professor PERSON report , the provisional - measures judge observed that the Deputy Minister had conceded during the hearing before that judge that the applicant could not have submitted said report at an earlier stage . However , the availability of the report did not affect the fact that it was for the applicant himself to relate convincingly about the motives for and the process of his conversion – and the applicant had failed to do so . The provisional - measures judge further held that even though considerable weight fell to be accorded to a report drawn up by Professor PERSON that focused on the individual asylum - seeker , this did not in every situation entail that a decision in which the Deputy Minister reached a different conclusion was by definition untenable . It was considered relevant in the case at hand that the Deputy Minister had challenged the report in a germane and well - reasoned manner , and the provisional - measures judge concurred with the Deputy Minister ’s criticism . Thus , it was indicated in the report that the death of the applicant ’s father and brother could have caused the crisis or disorientation that constitute one of the stages of a conversion . However , it did not appear that account had been taken in the report of the fact that this part of the applicant ’s asylum statement had already been disbelieved in the earlier proceedings . Moreover , no confirmation could be found in the report of the applicant ’s claim that Professor PERSON included in her assessment the question to what extent certain statements were brief and vague and what weight fell to be accorded to them . While Professor PERSON mentioned the period DATE and the applicant ’s statements surrounding that period in her report , no attention had been given to the vague and contradictory statements which the Deputy Minister had examined in the earlier proceedings . For this reason the provisional - measures judge concluded that it was from the outset excluded that the report by Professor PERSON could detract from the decisions that had been taken on the applicant ’s previous asylum requests .

On DATE the Acting President of the Section decided , under Rule CARDINAL , to indicate to ORG that it was desirable , in the interest of the parties and of the proper conduct of the proceedings before the ORG , not to expel the applicant to GPE for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG .

On DATE , the applicant informed the ORG that he had lodged a further appeal with the ORG against ORG decision of DATE .

On DATE the applicant submitted to the ORG a reply which his lawyer had received from Professor PERSON to a question from the lawyer relating to the Deputy Minister ’s criticism that Professor PERSON had partly based her conclusion of the sincerity of the applicant ’s conversion on events which had been disbelieved . Professor PERSON stated that her report also mentioned that the crisis which had immediately preceded the applicant ’s conversion had taken place while the applicant had been in immigration detention as set out in the report of the interview held with him in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The crisis - stage of the conversion could therefore be considered reliable even without the death of the applicant ’s father and brother . This letter of DATE was returned to the lawyer ; as the ORG had concluded its preliminary examination prior to receipt of the letter , it could not be added to the file .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant ’s further appeal on summary reasoning . No further appeal lay against that decision .

On DATE the applicant submitted to the ORG a report of a meeting that had taken place on DATE between himself and CARDINAL members of the so - called ORG . This commission , set up in DATE , consists of a number of theologians from various NORP churches . It carries out independent assessments of the conversion of asylum - seekers at the request of lawyers . Following their meeting with the applicant , the CARDINAL members of ORG concluded that they had no reason to doubt the sincerity of the applicant ’s faith .

The applicant further submitted CARDINAL statements , dated DATE and DATE , respectively , from ministers attached to ORG in PERSON , where the applicant was living at that time . The CARDINAL authors attested to the applicant ’s attendance of church services and his involvement in other church activities as well as to the sincerity of his NORP beliefs .