Latest News

Belgium: Obligation to give proper weight to the impacts of psychological harm; victims of forced marriage in Guinea constitute a particular social group

Friday, February 10, 2017

In a judgment of 10 February 2017, the Belgian Council of State reversed the decision of the Office of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS) and granted refugee status to a Guinean woman who feared persecution from her family after having escaped a second forced marriage.

France: Series of decisions on asylum claims related to sexual orientation

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

On 8 February 2017 the French Council of State published an analysis regarding asylum cases related to sexual orientation. The analysis issued by the Council of State focuses on matters of particular jurisprudential relevance and elucidate on the legal reasoning behind a series of cases raising similar legal questions.

The Netherlands: Cohabitation is not a requirement for family reunification of refugees

Monday, February 20, 2017

On 20 February 2017 the Council of State of the Netherlands has judged that cohabitation is not a requirement to apply Chapter V of the Family Reunification Directive

Latest Cases

Country of Decision: Austria , Country of Applicant: Ukraine , Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Country of origin information, Individual assessment, Internal protection, Obligation to give reasons, Persecution (acts of), Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Personal circumstances of applicant, Political Opinion, Refugee Status, Relevant Facts, Subsidiary Protection , Date of Decision: 17-11-2016

In the course of an asylum procedure, the statements of the asylum seeker have to be assessed integrally. This includes, inter alia, an analysis of (up-to-date) country reports. However, such analysis is not carried out in a sufficient manner where there are only superficial references to the country of origin information. Rather, it is required that the information contained is actually taken into consideration when taking the decision, applied to the specific circumstances of each case and compared to the information provided by the asylum seeker(s).

If this is not the case, there are significant deficiencies in the administrative inquiry and the facts relevant for the decision are not fully established. Therefore, the contested decisions are to be annulled and the matters are to be referred back to the competent authorities for new decisions to be issued since there is no sufficient basis for a decision of an administrative court. 

Country of Decision: Slovenia , Country of Applicant: Bosnia and Herzegovina , Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Dublin Transfer, Effective remedy (right to), Obligation to give reasons, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application , Date of Decision: 12-03-2015

The court may reject the request for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU when the provision is clear (acte clair), only if it checks that the clarity of the contested provision is equally obvious to the courts of other Member States and the CJEU, taking into account the characteristics of EU law and special problems posed by its interpretation, including a comparison of all language versions, respecting the specific terminology of EU law and the placement of the interpretation in the context of EU law.

The Constitutional Court annulled the contested judgment because of the infringement of the right to equal protection of rights in connection to the right to an effective remedy.

Country of Decision: Slovenia , Country of Applicant: Afghanistan , Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Circumstances ceased to exist, Effective remedy (right to), Non-refoulement, Relevant Facts, Subsidiary Protection , Date of Decision: 15-10-2015

Termination of an applicant’s international protection status (ie where there is a change or termination of protection grounds) must be examined against the principle of non-refoulement, which ensures the right to a fair and efficient procedure in which the Asylum authority assesses if non-refoulement would be violated where protection ceases.

It results from the principle of non-refoulement that the applicant in proceedings on termination of subsidiary protection must have the possibility to state all the reasons for which subsidiary protection should not cease.

In the process of renewal of subsidiary protection all the guarantees provided by Article 18 of the Constitution (Prohibition of Torture) should be respected.

Legislation which limited the assessment of the competent authority in the subsidiary protection renewal procedure only to the grounds based on which an individual has been granted subsidiary protection, is inconsistent with the right set out in Article 18 of the Constitution.

About EDAL

The European Database of Asylum Law (EDAL) is an online database co-ordinated by the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and a compilation of summaries of refugee and asylum case law from the courts of 19 EU Member States, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The summaries are published in English and in the relevant Member State’s national language.

For more information please see here.

If you are interested in contributing an article on a relevant subject to the EDAL blog or would like to inform us about an important national judgment, please kindly send an email to Amanda Taylor ( or Julia Zelvenska (