Latest News

NL: Secretary of State did not sufficiently motivate why the sexual orientation of the asylum seeker is not credible

Thursday, April 6, 2017

On 6 April 2017, the Court of The Hague has given a ruling related to a sexual-orientation-based asylum application by a Nigerian national. It ruled that, when deciding on the judicial review of an asylum case, particularly concerning the credibility of the asylum claim, it cannot be inferred from Article 46(3) recast Asylum Procedures Directive how invasive the assessment by the court in question must be.

UK Supreme Court: no breach of Article 8 ECHR when initiating proceedings for using a false passport

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

On 11 April 2017, the UK Supreme Court ruled on case SXH (Appellant) v The Crown Prosecution Service (Respondent) [2017] UKSC 30, relating a Somalian national who fled persecution on the basis of her belonging to a minority clan. She reached the UK from the Netherlands using a false passport. She applied for asylum and was arrested on suspicion of committing an offence under the Identity Cards Act 2006 (being in possession of an identity card relating to someone else).

UK: Upper Tribunal rules on obligations under Article 17 Dublin Regulation and Article 8 ECHR concerning family reunification of unaccompanied minor

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

The UK Upper Tribunal released its judgment in case RSM and ZAM v SSHD [2017] UKUT 00124 (IAC), related to the exercise of the discretionary power set forth by Article 17 of the Dublin Regulation for the purposes of reuniting the applicant, an Eritrean unaccompanied minor residing in Italy, with his family in the UK.

Latest Cases

Country of Decision: United Kingdom , Country of Applicant: Eritrea , Keywords: Best interest of the child, Child Specific Considerations, Delay, Dublin Transfer, Effective access to procedures, Procedural guarantees, Responsibility for examining application, Unaccompanied minor, Vulnerable person , Date of Decision: 12-04-2017

Article 17 forms an integral part of the Dublin Regulation and should be applied in a manner which furthers the aims and objectives of the Regulation in general. Article 17 is a justiciable right and should be particularly relied upon in circumstances where one of the overarching values of the Dublin Regulation, namely expedition, is not being fulfilled in the procedures of the host Member State. Article 17 is not subject to a prior assessment of non-satisfaction of Article 8 (family reunification) of that same Regulation.

Applicants who engaged with Dublin authorities should be subjected to less onerous standards when assessing the success of an Article 8 ECHR claim.

The UK Upper Tribunal held that there had been a failure of the Secretary of State to lawfully exercise the discretion conferred by Article 17 of the Dublin Regulation and ordered the Secretary of State to admit the applicant to the UK, based on: (1) the deficiencies of the Italian asylum system in the present case, namely the lack of sufficient expedition to register the asylum application and initiate Dublin proceedings; (2) the deficiencies and delay in the guardianship system in Italy; (3) the expected lengthy procedures for a “take charge” request and subsequent Dublin transfer; (4) the need to take into account the best interests of children.

Country of Applicant: Iraq , Keywords: Detention, Dublin Transfer, Freedom of movement (right to) , Date of Decision: 15-03-2017

Objective criteria to define a ‘risk of absconding’ must be established in a binding provision of general application. In the absence of that, Article 28(2) of the Dublin III Regulation is inapplicable and detention on this ground must be declared unlawful. The existence of case-law confirming a consistent administrative practice by domestic law-enforcement authorities does not suffice to conform to Article 28 of the Dublin III Regulation.

Country of Applicant: Ghana , Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Procedural guarantees, Subsequent application, Subsidiary Protection , Date of Decision: 20-10-2016

Based on the principle of effectiveness, the CJEU ruled that a limit of 15 days to apply for subsidiary protection following a notification of the decision not to grant refugee status is particularly short and cannot be justified by the need to ensure an effective return procedure. The limited period endangers applicants’ ability to submit an application for subsidiary protection.

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 (