• A third-country national or stateless person who is below the age of 18 at the time of his or her entry into the territory of a Member State and of the introduction of his or her asylum application in that State, but who, in the course of the asylum procedure, attains the age of majority and is thereafter granted refugee status must be regarded as a ‘minor’ for the purposes of the Family Reunification Directive.

     
  • This journal entry argues that EU third country agreements violate non-refoulement obligations as defined under international law based on a number of reasons. First, EU third country agreements violate Article 31(1) of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees; second when read purposively, violating Article 31(1) would trigger corresponding protection from refoulement, most notably when a violation of Article 31(1) may lead to rejection at the frontier; finally, third country agreements as a form of migration control to deter claimants from reaching the territories of a State, would be both a form of penalisation of refugees’ illegal presence as well as a violation of non-refoulement obligations.

  • The possibility to lodge an asylum application in practice is a prerequisite for the effective protection of those in need of international protection. If access to the asylum procedure is not guaranteed by the national authorities, asylum applicants cannot benefit from the guarantees afforded to those under the asylum procedure

  • Luxembourg is the 22nd country to be added to EDAL. The country profile page gives readers a summary of asylum law and procedures in Luxembourg and the case summary page provides the latest asylum case law from the Luxembourg Administrative Tribunal. 

  • In VC, R (On the Application Of) v SSHD, the Court of Appeal found that the lack of an automatic independent review of immigration detention put mentally ill detainees at a substantial disadvantage. The Court ruled that since mentally ill detainees might lack the ability to initiate a bail application, they are unjustifiably discriminated against.

Latest News


Greece: Council of State annuls geographical restriction of asylum applicants on the islands

Date: 
Tuesday, April 17, 2018

On 17 April 2018, the Greek Council of State issued Decision No 805/2018, allowing an action brought by the Greek Council for Refugees for the annulment of the Asylum Service Director Decision which established the geograph

Netherlands: Council of State rules that asexual applicants do not fall under the exception for LGBTI people in the application of the “safe country of origin” concept

Date: 
Wednesday, March 21, 2018

On 21 March 2018, the Dutch Council of State delivered its judgment no. 201703038/1/V1concerning an Algerian national who applied for asylum in the Netherlands on the grounds that he feared being persecuted in his country of origin for being asexual and for refusing to marry his niece.

Latest Cases


Country of Decision: France , Country of Applicant: Sudan , Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Unaccompanied minor, Vulnerable person , Date of Decision: 23-02-2018

The refusal of an entry decision given to an unaccompanied child at the Franco-Italian border is manifestly unlawful and constitutes a severe breach of the applicant’s interest.

Country of Decision: France , Country of Applicant: Afghanistan , Keywords: Country of origin information, Dublin Transfer, Indiscriminate violence, Request to take back, Subsidiary Protection , Date of Decision: 13-03-2018

An internal armed conflict, characterised by armed clashes, prevails throughout the whole territory of Afghanistan. The situation in the Kabul region and the city itself constitutes indiscriminate violence resulting from this internal armed conflict.

Transferring a family to Finland under the Dublin Regulation where their asylum application and subsequent appeals have been rejected is unlawful on account of the humanitarian and security situation in Afghanistan. 

Country of Decision: Denmark , Country of Applicant: Somalia , Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Country of origin information, Credibility assessment, Relevant Facts, Revocation of protection status, Subsidiary Protection , Date of Decision: 01-12-2017

The complainant is an ethnic Galadi and a Muslim from Afgoye, Somalia. On 6 April 2017, the Danish Immigration Service decided not to prolong the complainant’s subsidiary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 11 (2), cf. Art. 19 (1) no. 1 and Art. 19 (7) cf. Art. 26 (1).

After an overall assessment of the country of origin information the Board found that a deportation of the complainant to Afgoye no longer constitutes a violation of Denmark’s international obligations including ECHR article 3. However, regarding the assessment under the Aliens Act article 26, the Board found that due to the applicant’s economic, linguistic and social integration the Immigration Service’s decision to end the applicant’s subsidiary protection was incorrect. Thus the Board decided to uphold his subsidiary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (2).

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 20 European 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 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 (ataylor@ecre.org) or Julia Zelvenska (jzelvenska@ecre.org).