Andre Shepherd v Bundesrupublik Deutschland
C-472/13, which analysed Article 9(2)(e) of the Qualification Directive in the context of an America soldier who sought asylum in Germany on the basis that he would be required to participate in the Iraqi conflict which he considered to be both illegal and one involving the commission of war crimes. While the CJEU judgment provides guidance on the operation of Article 9(2)(e) it does not deal with the specific issues posed to us.
63.
The grounds additionally criticise the judge for stating that the appellant “is not a well man” and that he may get another medical deferral, given that his medical condition was regarded as temporary and was treated between 2004 and 2008. Any error of law by the judge in applying the historic deferral of military service to the role the applicant may be given if mobilised clearly falls away in light of our assessment above.
- DECISION AND REASONS
- ackground
- VB and Another (draft evaders and prison conditions) Ukraine
- OM (AA(1) wrong in law) Zimbabwe
- challenge to the First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- [2006] UKAIT 00016
- Krotov
- BE (Iran)
- The pre-trial detention issue
- The IHL issue
- Sepet v SSHD
- Krotov v SSHD
- (e) prosecution or punishment for refusal to perform military service in a conflict, where performing military service would include crimes or acts falling under the exclusion clauses as set out in Article 12(2)
- prosecution or punishment for refusal to perform military service in a conflict, where performing military service would include crimes or acts falling under regulation 7
- Sepet and Bulbul
- MI & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- Amare v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- Andre Shepherd v Bundesrupublik Deutschland
- Direction Regarding Anonymity – Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008
