Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Legal Aspects of LADO from a European Perspective: Struggling with the Burden of Proof?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Language Analysis for the Determination of Origin

Part of the book series: Language Policy ((LAPO,volume 16))

Abstract

Common rules on most aspects of the asylum process are now in force in the European Union e.g. to determine which State is responsible for determining a claim; on asylum seekers’ entitlements and obligations as regards their reception in Member States; to regulate the asylum procedure itself; and to determine who qualifies for international protection. The so-called EU asylum acquis which resulted in a Common European Asylum System (CEAS) does not stand on its own, but builds on the international refugee protection regime. EU legislation states that the CEAS is to be based on a full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. In asylum cases the burden of proof is placed on the asylum seeker. Usually states expect asylum seekers to adduce evidence in order to substantiate their asylum claim.

In recent years, there appears to be an increasing emphasis on, and interest in, the use of so-called objective or scientific evidence in asylum claims. This kind of evidence has to be placed in the different international (UN Convention on Refugees), European (European Convention on Human Rights, EU Charter, EU Directives) and national legal frameworks (UK, NL). These frameworks include the UK’s opt-outs from the second phase CEAS instruments, as discussed below.

Where and how Language Analysis for the Determination of Origin (LADO) comes into the process, and the legal limitations which apply when taking LADO into account as evidence, are the focus of this chapter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Directive 2011/95/EU on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast) (OJ 2011 L 337/9).

  2. 2.

    Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (Recast) (OJ 2013 L 180/60).

  3. 3.

    Council Decision (EU) 2015/1523 OJ 15.9. 2015 L239/146. See also F. Maiani. http://www.eumigrationlawblog.eu/. All weblinks accessed 17 July 2017. Priorities for the Dutch Presidency of the Council of the EU Jan to June 2016. http://www.eunec.eu/sites/www.eunec.eu/files/attachment/files/nationaal-programma-engels.pdf

  4. 4.

    Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (Qualification Directive) OJ L 304 30.9.2004, p. 12–23; Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status; (Procedures Directive) OJ L 326, 13.12.2005, p. 13–34.

  5. 5.

    Article 4(3) Directive 2011/95/EU (Qualification Directive).

  6. 6.

    Article 33 Refugee Convention, Article 3 of the Convention against Torture, Article 7 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

  7. 7.

    Article 3 European Convention on Human Rights.

  8. 8.

    Article 4 Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

  9. 9.

    Article 15 Qualification Directive.

  10. 10.

    The terms of Article 4 Qualification Directive 2004/83/EC are the same as Article 4 recast Qualification Directive 2011/95/EU, and therefore, the same measures apply in the UK. UK Immigration Rules say that confirmation of the person’s statements will not be needed (when the five conditions in Art 4(5) QD noted above) are met: Immigration Rules Part 11 Asylum: Rule 339 L. (339 N “In determining whether the general credibility of the person has been established the Secretary of State will apply the provisions in s.8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004.”)

  11. 11.

    M.M. v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland case C-277/11, CJEU, 22 November 2012, para. 88, also the case note by R. Severijns in RV 1950–2015.

  12. 12.

    M.M. para. 64.

  13. 13.

    “Not needing confirmation” suggests a relaxed burden of proof and “cooperation” suggests a relaxed standard of proof for asylum processes compared with civil and criminal processes, Art 4(5) QD. “Substantiation” therefore incorporates both the burden and the standard of proof since a claim will be substantiated if the applicant discharges the burden of proof by providing evidence to the standard required.

  14. 14.

    UNHCR, Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, December 2011, para 196. http://www.unhcr.org/3d58e13b4.html

  15. 15.

    UNHCR, Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees; UNHCR, Beyond Proof Credibility Assessment in EU Asylum Systems, 2013, p36. http://www.unhcr.org/51a8a08a9.html. Reference is made to the UNHCR Handbook, in particular paras 195–205; UNHCR, Note on Burden and Standard of Proof in Refugee Claims, 1998. http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3338.html

  16. 16.

    UNHCR, Handbook, para. 203.

  17. 17.

    UNHCR 2013, p. 53.

  18. 18.

    Art. 3(2) GALA.

  19. 19.

    Art. 31(1) Aliens Act 2000. Parts of this chapter are based on Zwaan 2010. See also the contribution of Severijns, this volume.

  20. 20.

    IND werkinstructie nr. 2010/10 (AUB). See also UNHCR 2013, p. 90.

  21. 21.

    For the institutional constellation of the Dutch language analysis see Ten Thije 2007, p. 233, Figure 2.

  22. 22.

    EMN, Het vaststellen van de identiteit van asielzoekers. Praktijk en uitdagingen, oktober 2012, p. 28.

  23. 23.

    The unit within BLT responsible for undertaking language analyses consists of four (general) linguists and around 45 freelance language analysts.

  24. 24.

    See IND/BLT September 2007, Vakbijlage Taalanalyse: a memo in which the language analysis by BLT is described; also Cambier 2010. In March 2014 a new version of the herziene Werkkader taalanalisten IND was published.

  25. 25.

    For an exception – the language analysis was invalidated without a contra-expertise – see CoS 7 October 2010 2010000553/1/v2; District Court Zutphen 17 November 2010, AWB 09/22444.

  26. 26.

    The topics are mainly derived from a database called Vluchtweb and from an article by A. Pinxter (2010).

  27. 27.

    CoS 23 March 2016, 201410579/1/v2; District Court Roermond 29 January 2016, AWB 14/24872; District Court Haarlem 25 August 2015, AWB Rechtbank Haarlem, 15/7457; CoS 27 January 2003, 200206297/1; CoS 18 February 2010, 200907334/1; CoS 29 October 2013, 201206752/1/V3; CoS 23 January 2014, 201212028/1/V1, JV 2014/97.

  28. 28.

    CoS 7 October 2014, 201311935/1/v3; CoS 23 November 2007, 200707103/1; District Court Assen 23 July 2007, AWB 07/10851; District Court Zwolle 8 January 2010, AWB 09/26881.

  29. 29.

    District Court Roermond 7 May 2015, AWB 14/22637 en 14/22641.

  30. 30.

    CoS 16 April 2010, 200903085/1/v1; CoS 4 June 2010, 200904906/1/v1; CoS 1 September 2010, 201000506/1/v1.

  31. 31.

    CoS 9 September 2013, 201211522/1/V1, JV 2013/400 case note by Marseille. The district Court had made use of Art. 8:47 General Administrative Law Act (Awb).

  32. 32.

    CoS 3 augustus 2015, 201502410/1/V2; CoS 21 February 2014, 201300418/1/v1, JV 2014/126 with case note Spijkerboer; CoS 18 September 2013, 201211250/1/v6; ECtHR 10 February 2010, appl.nr. 60860/09; ECtHR 19 November 2009, appl.nr. 60915/09; ECtHR 25 August 2009, appl.nr. 43618/09; CoS 30 September 2004, 200405508/1; CoS 18 December 2009, 200901087/1.

  33. 33.

    Asylum Procedures Directive (2005/85/EC) Qualification Directive (2004/83/EC).

  34. 34.

    Recast Procedures Directive(2013/32/EU), Recast Qualification Directive (2011/95/EU). The UK has also opted out of the recast Reception Conditions Directive (2013/33/EU), and the Returns Directive (2008/115).

  35. 35.

    These protocols were negotiated in terms of the Treaty of Amsterdam, and updated in the Lisbon Treaty. The UK opted into the Second Stage Dublin Regulation (604/2013), as well as the Second Stage Amended EURODAC Regulation (603/2013).

  36. 36.

    Council Decision (EU) 2015/1523 OJ 15.9. 2015 L239/146.

  37. 37.

    All Member States are bound by the general principles of EU Law, including the duty to uphold fundamental rights: Treaty on European Union Article 6(2). NS and ME v UK and Ireland (joined cases C-411 and 493/10) judgement of 21 December 201: Member States must make sure they do not rely on an interpretation of an instrument of secondary legislation which would be in conflict with the fundamental rights protected by the European Union.

  38. 38.

    Human Rights Act 1998.

  39. 39.

    Other matters in relation to which the UK’s standards are below those of the EU, such as reception conditions (the right to work), and detention (time limit, Returns Directive), also impinge on the asylum process but are not discussed here.

  40. 40.

    Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 s 82 (2)(a).

  41. 41.

    UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) is part of the Home Office. In this chapter, we refer to the Home Office.

  42. 42.

    Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 s 82 (2)(b). The provision refers to the “Secretary of State” as the decision maker. This signifies that the decision maker is acting on behalf of the State.

  43. 43.

    Immigration Rule 339 NA.

  44. 44.

    API Assessing credibility and refugee status Version 9, 6 January 2015.

  45. 45.

    API Assessing credibility and refugee status Version 9, 6 January 2015.

  46. 46.

    MK v SSHD [2007] CSIH 13.

  47. 47.

    Language Analysis API, Version 19, updated 21April 2015.

  48. 48.

    Language Analysis API, Version 19, 21 April 2015.

  49. 49.

    The Equality (Language Analysis—Palestinian, Syrian and Kuwaiti Testing) Authorisation (No. 2) 2013.

  50. 50.

    The Equality (Language Analysis—Palestinian, Syrian and Kuwaiti Testing) Authorisation (No. 2) 2013.

  51. 51.

    The Equality (Language Analysis—Palestinian, Syrian and Kuwaiti Testing) Authorisation (No. 2) 2013.

  52. 52.

    Equality Act 2010 Sched 3 Part 4 Para 17(4) (a).

  53. 53.

    Language Analysis API, Version 19, 21April 2015.

  54. 54.

    Language Analysis API Version 19, 21 April 2015 part 7.

  55. 55.

    The Equality (Language Analysis – Palestinian, Syrian & Kuwaiti Testing) Authorisation (No.2) Home Office 25 February 2013.

  56. 56.

    Language Analysis API Version 19, 21 April 2015.

  57. 57.

    API Assessing Credibility and Refugee Status Version 9, 6 January 2015.

  58. 58.

    Immigration Rule 339J.

  59. 59.

    Immigration Rule 339J.

  60. 60.

    https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/first-tier-tribunal-immigration-and-asylum

  61. 61.

    http://www.tribunals.gov.uk/ImmigrationAsylum/DailyCourtLists/dailycourtlists.htm

  62. 62.

    See The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 2014 No 2604 (L.31) Rule 19.

  63. 63.

    Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 (above) Rules 4, 14.

  64. 64.

    Mohamed (role of interpreter) Somalia [2011] UKUT 337 (IAC); AA (language diagnosis; use of interpreters) Somalia [2008] UKAIT 00029.

  65. 65.

    Practice Directions Immigration and Asylum Chambers of the First Tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal (12 November 2014), Part 4.

  66. 66.

    N v Adv Gen for Scotland [2014] UKSC 30.

  67. 67.

    N v Adv Gen for Scotland [2014] UKSC 30 Para 48.

  68. 68.

    N v Adv Gen for Scotland [2014] UKSC 30 Para 51.

  69. 69.

    NA v SSHD [2015] CSOH 115A.

References

  • Campbell, J. (2013). Language analysis in the United Kingdom’s refugee status determination system: Seeing through policy claims about ‘expert knowledge’. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(4), 670–690. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2011.634506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corcoran, C. (2004). A critical examination of the use of language analysis interviews in asylum proceedings: A case study of a West African seeking asylum in the Netherlands. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 11(2), 200–221. https://doi.org/10.1558/sll.2004.11.2.200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costello, C. (2005). The asylum procedures directive and the proliferation of safe country practices: Deterrence, deflection and the dismantling of international protection. European Journal of Migration and Law, 7, 35–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, S. (2012). The use of language analysis in asylum decision-making in the UK – A discussion. Journal of Immigration Asylum and Nationality Law (JIANL), 26(3), 255–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, S. (2014). Case comment SSHD v MN. Journal of Immigration Asylum and Nationality Law (JIANL), 28(3), 293–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eades, D. (2009). Testing the claims of asylum seekers: The role of language analysis. Language Assessment Quarterly, 6(1), 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300802606523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Europees Migratienetwerk (EMN). (2012). Het vaststellen van de identiteit van asielzoekers. Praktijk en uitdagingen. www.emnnetherlands.nl. Accessed 17 July 2017.

  • Good, A. (2007). Anthropology and expertise in the asylum courts. Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maiani, F. (2016). Hotspots and relocation schemes: The right therapy for the common European asylum system? 3 Feb 2016. www.eumigrationlawblog.eu. Accessed 17 July 2017.

  • Pinxter, A. (2010). Het instrument taalanalyse in de Nederlandse asielprocedure. Asiel- & Migrantenrecht, 2010(2), 72–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ten Thije, J. D. (2007). Language politics at European border; The language analysis interview of asylum seekers in the Netherlands. In G. Lüdi, K. Seelmann, & B. Sitter-Liver (Eds.), Sprachenvielfalt und Kulturfrieden Sprachminderheit – Einsprachigkeit – Mehrsprachigkeit: Probleme und Chancen sprachlicher Vielfalt (pp. 227–251). Paulus-Verlag/Academic Press/Kohlhammer Verlag: Fribourg/Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI). (2012). Language analysis testing of asylum applicants: Impacts and economic costs and benefits. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/language-analysis-testing-of-asylum-applicants. Accessed 17 July 2017.

  • United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). (2013). Beyond proof. Credibility assessment in EU asylum systems. UNHCR: Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwaan, K. (2010). Dutch court decisions and language analysis for the determination of origin. In K. Zwaan, P. Muysken, & M. Verrips (Eds.), Language and origin: The role of language in European asylum procedures: A linguistic and legal survey (pp. 215–225). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK

    Sarah Craig

  2. Centre for Migration Law, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Karin Zwaan

Authors
  1. Sarah Craig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karin Zwaan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Craig .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Essex, Wivenhoe, Colchester, UK

    Peter L. Patrick  & Monika S. Schmid  & 

  2. Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Karin Zwaan

Appendices

Table of Cases

ECtHR Cases

  • ECtHR 25 August 2009, appl.nr. 43618/09

  • ECtHR 19 November 2009, appl.nr. 60915/09

  • ECtHR 10 February 2010, appl.nr. 60860/09

UK Case Law

  • AA (language diagnosis; use of interpreters) Somalia [2008] UKAIT 00029

  • MK v SSHD [2007] CSIH 13

  • M.M. v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland case C-277/11, CJEU, 22 November 2011

  • Mohamed (role of interpreter) Somalia [2011] UKUT 337 (IAC)

  • N v Adv Gen for Scotland [2014] UKSC 30

  • NA v SSHD [2015] CSOH 115A

Dutch Case Law

  • CoS 27 January 2003, 200206297/1

  • CoS 30 September 2004, 200405508/1

  • CoS 23 November 2007, 200707103/1

  • CoS 18 December 2009, 200901087/1.

  • CoS 18 February 2010, 200907334/1

  • CoS 16 April 2010, 200903085/1/v1

  • CoS 4 June 2010, 200904906/1/v1

  • CoS 1 September 2010, 201000506/1/v1

  • CoS 7 October 2010 2010000553/1/v2

  • CoS 9 September 2013, 201211522/1/V1, JV 2013/400 case note by Marseille

  • CoS 18 September 2013, 201211250/1/v6

  • CoS 29 October 2013, 201206752/1/V3

  • CoS 23 January 2014, 201212028/1/V1, JV 2014/97

  • CoS 21 February 2014, 201300418/1/v1, JV 2014/126 case note by Spijkerboer

  • CoS 7 October 2014, 201311935/1/v3

  • CoS 3 augustus 2015, 201502410/1/V2

  • CoS 23 March 2016, 201410579/1/v2

  • District Court Assen 23 July 2007, AWB 07/10851

  • District Court Zwolle 8 January 2010, AWB 09/2688

  • District Court Zutphen 17 November 2010, AWB 09/22444

  • District Court Roermond 7 May 2015, AWB 14/22637 en 14/22641

  • District Court Haarlem 25 August 2015, AWB Rechtbank Haarlem, 15/7457

  • District Court Roermond 29 January 2016, AWB 14/24872

Table of International Materials, European Legislative Instruments and National Materials

International Materials

  • 1951 UN Refugee Convention

  • 1984 Convention against Torture

  • 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

  • 1950 European Convention on Human Rights

  • 2011 UNHCR Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Geneva: UNHCR.

European Legislative Instruments

  • EU Charter on Fundamental rights OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p391-407

  • Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (Qualification Directive) OJ L 304 30.9.2004, p. 12–23

  • Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status; (Procedures Directive) OJ L 326, 13.12.2005, p. 13–34

  • Directive 2011/95/EU on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast) OJ L 337, 20.12.2011, p9-26

  • Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (Recast) OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p60-95

  • Council Decision (EU) 2015/1523 OJ 15.9. 2015 L239/146

National Materials

UK Legislation: Statutes

  • Human Rights Act 1998 (c.42)

  • Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c.41)

  • Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (c.19)

  • Equality Act 2010 (c.15) Schedule 3 Part 4 Para 17(4) (a).

Immigration Rules

  • Immigration Rules (HC395) Part 11 Asylum, Rules 339J, 339NA

  • Procedure Rules and Practice Directions

  • The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 No 2604 (L.31)

  • Practice Directions Immigration and Asylum Chambers of the First Tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal (18 November 2014), Part 4.

UK Government (UKVI, Home Office) Materials

  • Asylum Process Instructions (API)

  • Assessing Credibility and Refugee Status API Version 9, 6 January 2015

  • Language Analysis API, Version 19, updated 21 April 2015

Authorisations

  • The Equality (Language analysis – Palestinian, Syrian & Kuwaiti testing) Authorisation (No.2) 25 February 2013

Dutch Legislation

Law

  • Aliens Act 2000

  • General Administrative Law Act

Guidelines

  • INS/BLT September 2007, Vakbijlage Taalanalyse

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Craig, S., Zwaan, K. (2019). Legal Aspects of LADO from a European Perspective: Struggling with the Burden of Proof?. In: Patrick, P.L., Schmid, M.S., Zwaan, K. (eds) Language Analysis for the Determination of Origin. Language Policy, vol 16. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-79003-9_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-79003-9_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-79001-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-79003-9

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation