Advanced

Statslösa palestinier på flykt - mot vilket land ska deras asylansökan prövas?

Lindhe, Hanna LU (2016) JURM02 20161
Department of Law
Abstract
A stateless Palestinian can be granted a status as a refugee or an alternative status if he or she is risking persecution in and is outside the country of his former habitual residence. The asylum application should be examined in relation to that country.
The term former habitual residence, which in the Swedish aliens’ act is translated into vanlig vistelseort, has not been defined in Swedish law, preparatory works, court practice or literature and the term’s meaning is not clear.
In this paper I examine whether the court practice in Sweden is consistent when they apply the aliens’ act. I also examine which criteria the courts should consider when they decide in relation to which country they should examine the asylum application.
... (More)
A stateless Palestinian can be granted a status as a refugee or an alternative status if he or she is risking persecution in and is outside the country of his former habitual residence. The asylum application should be examined in relation to that country.
The term former habitual residence, which in the Swedish aliens’ act is translated into vanlig vistelseort, has not been defined in Swedish law, preparatory works, court practice or literature and the term’s meaning is not clear.
In this paper I examine whether the court practice in Sweden is consistent when they apply the aliens’ act. I also examine which criteria the courts should consider when they decide in relation to which country they should examine the asylum application.
After an examination of 37 Swedish judgments I conclude that the courts use the term used in the law, habitual residence, in only 14 of those judgments. In the rest of the judgments they use several other terms and their use of terms is not uniform. I then examined whether the term used affected which criteria the courts consider to decide where the applicant was habitually resident. I concluded they consider the same criteria regardless of which term they use. The court practice is therefore not consistent.
To reach a conclusion as to which criteria the court should consider I examined the meaning of the term for this specific field of law but also its meaning in other fields of law.
The applicant must have been resided in a country more than temporary to be considered habitually resident there. It is not clear how long that residence must have lasted, but there has to be some kind of connection between the person and the country. Such a connection can be shown if the person has family, work or assets in the country. The connection with the country must not be formal or legal.
I then compared the meaning of habitual residence with the meaning of domicile. I also compared habitual residence with another Swedish term, hemvist, used by the Swedish courts. A person must have an intention to stay in a country permanently to be considered to have his or her domicile in that country. Such an intention is also often required when applying the Swedish term hemvist. Therefore, more is required to be considered to have domicile in a country than to be considered habitually resident there.
Even though there are similarities between the different terms, they do not always mean the same thing and the courts should use the term used in the Swedish aliens’ act and they should consider the same criteria when applying that law.
A stateless person can be habitually resident in more than one country. I recommend the courts to examine the asylum application in relation to all those countries in which the applicant is habitually resident. If the applicant does not meet the criteria to be granted a refugee status in relation to any of those countries, and if he or she is able to return to there, the applicant should be returned to that country. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
En statslös palestinier kan beviljas flyktingstatus eller status som alternativt eller övrigt skyddsbehövande om han eller hon riskerar förföljelse i, och befinner sig utanför, det land där han eller hon har sin vanliga vistelseort. Det är också mot det landet som prövningen av asylansökan ska göras. Begreppet vanlig vistelseort har inte definierats i svensk lag, förarbeten, praxis eller doktrin och dess innebörd är oklar.
I uppsatsen utreder jag om de svenska domstolarna är konsekventa i sin tillämpning av utlänningslagen samt vilka kriterier de ska beakta i valet av mot vilket land en statslös palestiniers asylansökan ska prövas.
Vid en utvärdering av 37 domar konstaterar jag att domstolarna endast använder sig av begreppet vanlig... (More)
En statslös palestinier kan beviljas flyktingstatus eller status som alternativt eller övrigt skyddsbehövande om han eller hon riskerar förföljelse i, och befinner sig utanför, det land där han eller hon har sin vanliga vistelseort. Det är också mot det landet som prövningen av asylansökan ska göras. Begreppet vanlig vistelseort har inte definierats i svensk lag, förarbeten, praxis eller doktrin och dess innebörd är oklar.
I uppsatsen utreder jag om de svenska domstolarna är konsekventa i sin tillämpning av utlänningslagen samt vilka kriterier de ska beakta i valet av mot vilket land en statslös palestiniers asylansökan ska prövas.
Vid en utvärdering av 37 domar konstaterar jag att domstolarna endast använder sig av begreppet vanlig vistelseort i 14 domar. Andra begrepp de använder sig av är hemvist, anknytning, koppling, ursprung eller inget begrepp alls. Begreppsanvändningen är därmed inte enhetlig. Jag undersökte sedan huruvida vilket begrepp de använder sig av har någon betydelse för vilka kriterier de beaktar för att bestämma var den sökande har sin vanliga vistelseort och som domstolarna väljer att göra prövningen mot. Det har inte någon betydelse vilket begrepp de använder sig av utan de beaktar samma kriterier oavsett. Domstolarna är därmed inte konsekventa i sin tillämpning.
För att komma fram till vilka kriterier de svenska domstolarna ska beakta har jag undersökt innebörden av vanlig vistelseort i det aktuella rättsliga sammanhanget, men också i andra rättsliga sammanhang i vilka begreppet används.
En statslös person ska ha varit bosatt i ett land mer än tillfälligt för att ha sin vanliga vistelseort där. Det är oklart huruvida lång tid som krävs men det ska ha uppkommit någon slags länk mellan den sökande och landet. För att avgöra om en sådan länk finns kan domstolarna beakta om personen har till exempel familj, arbete eller tillgångar i landet. Kopplingen till landet måste inte ha varit formell eller legal.
Jag jämförde också begreppets engelska motsvarighet habitual residence med begreppet domicile. Vidare jämförde jag vanlig vistelseort med hemvist. För domicile krävs en avsikt att bosätta sig i landet permanent. Alltså krävs det mer för att en person ska anses ha sitt domicile i ett land än vad som krävs för att personen ska anses ha sitt habitual residence där.
Också för hemvist krävs ofta en avsikt att stanna i ett land en längre tid, vilket inte krävs för vanlig vistelseort.
Även om det förekommer vissa likheter betyder begreppen inte alltid samma sak och det är av vikt att domstolarna använder sig av det begrepp som används i utlänningslagen och att de då beaktar samma kriterier.
En statslös person kan ha sin vanliga vistelseort i flera länder och jag rekommenderar de svenska migrationsdomstolarna att göra prövningen mot alla de länder som utgör personens vanliga vistelseort. Om personen inte uppfyller kriterierna för att beviljas flyktingstatus i förhållande till något av dessa länder och har möjlighet att återvända dit bör personen sändas åter till det landet. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Lindhe, Hanna LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Stateless Palestinians fleeing - in relation to which country should their asylum application be examined?
course
JURM02 20161
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
folkrätt, förvaltningsrätt, migrationsrätt, asylrätt
language
Swedish
id
8873123
date added to LUP
2016-05-30 16:22:33
date last changed
2016-05-30 16:22:33
@misc{8873123,
  abstract     = {A stateless Palestinian can be granted a status as a refugee or an alternative status if he or she is risking persecution in and is outside the country of his former habitual residence. The asylum application should be examined in relation to that country. 
The term former habitual residence, which in the Swedish aliens’ act is translated into vanlig vistelseort, has not been defined in Swedish law, preparatory works, court practice or literature and the term’s meaning is not clear.
In this paper I examine whether the court practice in Sweden is consistent when they apply the aliens’ act. I also examine which criteria the courts should consider when they decide in relation to which country they should examine the asylum application.
After an examination of 37 Swedish judgments I conclude that the courts use the term used in the law, habitual residence, in only 14 of those judgments. In the rest of the judgments they use several other terms and their use of terms is not uniform. I then examined whether the term used affected which criteria the courts consider to decide where the applicant was habitually resident. I concluded they consider the same criteria regardless of which term they use. The court practice is therefore not consistent. 
To reach a conclusion as to which criteria the court should consider I examined the meaning of the term for this specific field of law but also its meaning in other fields of law.
The applicant must have been resided in a country more than temporary to be considered habitually resident there. It is not clear how long that residence must have lasted, but there has to be some kind of connection between the person and the country. Such a connection can be shown if the person has family, work or assets in the country. The connection with the country must not be formal or legal.
I then compared the meaning of habitual residence with the meaning of domicile. I also compared habitual residence with another Swedish term, hemvist, used by the Swedish courts. A person must have an intention to stay in a country permanently to be considered to have his or her domicile in that country. Such an intention is also often required when applying the Swedish term hemvist. Therefore, more is required to be considered to have domicile in a country than to be considered habitually resident there. 
Even though there are similarities between the different terms, they do not always mean the same thing and the courts should use the term used in the Swedish aliens’ act and they should consider the same criteria when applying that law.
A stateless person can be habitually resident in more than one country. I recommend the courts to examine the asylum application in relation to all those countries in which the applicant is habitually resident. If the applicant does not meet the criteria to be granted a refugee status in relation to any of those countries, and if he or she is able to return to there, the applicant should be returned to that country.},
  author       = {Lindhe, Hanna},
  keyword      = {folkrätt,förvaltningsrätt,migrationsrätt,asylrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Statslösa palestinier på flykt - mot vilket land ska deras asylansökan prövas?},
  year         = {2016},
}