How primitive again – judicial demagoguery at its best

This is the case (did not see such “questions” before) in which a preliminary procedure becomes an insult. It also shows how the judicial branch in Hungary accepts the xenophobic, homophobic, racist, paranoid narrative of the Hungarian government regarding the refugee crisis. Privacy and human dignity is not important  any more. What kind of physical examination do they talk about? Sad and very primitive.

” CJEU: C-473/16 F – Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrative and Labour Court Szeged (Hungary), 29 August 2016

Date:
Friday, October 21, 2016
The Administrative and Labour Court Szeged (Hungary) has referred a request for preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the interpretation to be given to Article 4 of the Qualification Directive. The case relates to a Nigerian national, who had submitted an application for international protection based on sexual orientation in Hungary.

The Administrative and Labour Court Szeged has referred two question to the CJEU:

Should Article 4 of the Qualification Directive be interpreted in light of Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as not precluding that, when LGBTI’s apply for international protection, advice by a psychologist, based on projective personality tests, is taken into account when assessing the application for asylum, even if the opinion was drawn up without any questions asked by the applicant about his sexual habits and without being subjected to a physical examination?

If the expert opinion referred to in the first question cannot be used as evidence, should Article 4 of the Qualification Directive be interpreted that, in the light of Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, when the applicant puts forward, in support of his application, that he is being persecuted because of his sexual orientation, neither the administrative authorities nor the courts have the ability to investigate the credibility of the asylum seeker on the basis of an expert’s report, regardless of the specific characteristics of the methods used in this report?”

Advertisements