Latest News

Netherlands: Asylum authorities failed to take into account best interests of the child when considering internal protection alternative

Monday, May 1, 2017

On 1 May 2017, the Dutch Court of Appeal in The Hague decided to grant an appeal to an unaccompanied minor from Iraq, largely relying on the principle of best interests of the child.

Netherlands: Council of State quashed decision requiring individual guarantees before transferring vulnerable persons to Italy

Thursday, May 11, 2017

On 11 May 2017, the Dutch Council of State ruled on a case concerning a return to Italy under the Dublin procedure of victim of sexual abuse who was receiving appropriate psychological support in the Netherlands.

Netherlands: Council of State allows return to Italy of beneficiary who had residence permit expired

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

On 9 May 2017, the Dutch Council of State ruled in favour of the State Secretary and quashed a previous decision by the Court of Appeal of The Hague which had obliged the State Secretary to reconsider an inadmissibility decision.

Latest Cases

Country of Decision: Cyprus , Country of Applicant: Iran , Date of Decision: 14-11-2016

The Defendant faced two charges, that of a ‘prohibited immigrant’ and of illegally entering the Republic of Cyprus, whilst at the same time he had applied for asylum. With the aid of effective legal representation, he was found not guilty on both charges. 

Country of Decision: Germany , Country of Applicant: Afghanistan , Keywords: Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid , Date of Decision: 16-02-2017

Decision to authorise legal aid in a process which concerns whether the applicant has a right to access an integration course.

Country of Decision: Germany , Country of Applicant: Pakistan , Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Inadmissible application, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Personal interview, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Safe third country, Subsequent application , Date of Decision: 19-01-2017

1. An application for asylum lodged in Germany only qualifies as a subsequent application within the meaning of section 71a of the Asylum Act, interpreted in conformity with the constitution, if the first asylum procedure in a country that is generally determined to be a safe third country has actually been conducted in compliance with the 1951 Refugee Convention as well as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
This is not the case, where, at the time of the decision, there have been systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedures of the third country which have put the applicant at risk of an inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Art. 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Art. 3 of the ECHR.

2. The procedure to determine whether a second asylum procedure is to be conducted also requires a personal interview of the applicant. Such an interview is only dispensable where the Federal Office of Migration and Refugees (Federal Office) can either decide on the basis of the information received on the merits of the decision whether the new application constitutes a new submission or assess already on the basis of the detailed written explanations of the applicant reliably and safely that the submission is clearly and manifestly inconsistent.

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 ( or Julia Zelvenska (