F.G. v. Sweden (Eur. Ct. H.R.)

Abstract

relied on to dismiss the persecution risk and refuse protection. Similarly, the Grand Chamber referred to the CJEU case of A, B, C, concerning three applicants who had lodged an application for asylum in the Netherlands because they feared persecution in their respective countries of origin on account, in particular, of their homosexuality. In its conclusion, the Court held, inter alia, that national authorities are precluded from finding that "the statements of the applicant for asylum lack credibility merely because the applicant did not rely on his declared sexual orientation on the first occasion he was given to set out the ground for persecution." 18 Concluding Remarks The Grand Chamber judgment in F.G. v. Sweden can be seen as a valuable contribution to the interpretation of asylum law, both in terms of setting domestic legal standards regarding the risk assessment for asylum applicants, as well as in assessing the risk of the private and public practice of religion. The importance of the decision mainly lies in the Court deciding that national authorities must asses "of their own motion" the risk to the applicant of factors they are aware of that may lead to persecution, regardless of whether or not the applicant chooses to rely on those elements in his or her asylum application. Also of note was the Court's reiteration of the long-standing guidelines of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that "one should not be compelled to hide, change or renounce one's religious beliefs in order to avoid persecution." 19 The manifold impacts of the judgment are also reflected in the interaction on refugee and asylum rights between the two supranational Courts in Europe, 20 the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, demonstrating the broader context in which this judgment can be situated. Ultimately, the present decision might be seen as a step closer to achieving an enrichment of the standard of protection in this area of law and consolidating the guarantees for particularly vulnerable groups such as asylum seekers. ENDNOTES

A reliable and highly efficient exfoliation method for water-dispersible MoS2 nanosheet

“…[23] As a result, numerous investigations have been focusing on developing a more facile exfoliation methods for MoS 2 nanosheet. [24] In general, a proper solvent or surfactant is used as well as a mechanical force. There are mainly two types of solvent are used, organic solvents and water with an added surfactants.…”