You are hereHome ›
EDAL case summaries
Country of Applicant: Morocco
Keywords: Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN, Exclusion from protection, Terrorism
The CJEU in this case expanded on its previous ruling of B & D. Whereas previously the scope of the exclusion clause for those engaging in terrorist acts was limited to engaging in, conspiring to or planning an actual act of terrorism with an international dimension, the CJEU has now widened the scope to include those who provide logistical support even where no act of terrorism takes place.
Country of Decision: Netherlands
Country of Applicant: Eritrea
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Dublin Transfer, Unaccompanied minor
Switzerland is not the responsible Member State pursuant to Articles 6 and 8 of the Dublin III Regulation, since the unaccompanied minor lives in a foster family in the Netherlands and the Dutch authorities should take into consideration the factors of Article 6 (3) Dublin III Regulation, including the views of the minor. According to the court, Nidos (the guardianship institution for unaccompanied minors in the Netherlands) is an expert institution and its advice should be followed in assessing the best interest of the child.
Country of Decision: Ireland
Country of Applicant: Serbia
Keywords: Country of origin information, Discrimination, Education (right to), Humanitarian considerations, Persecution (acts of), Race, Relevant Facts
In this case, the Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal against a High Court Judgment in which the Refugee Appeals Tribunal was found to have erred in law in its approach to determining persecution. The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal on the basis that the tribunal member’s finding of no risk of persecution was not unreasonable (within the applicable standards of judicial review) and that the High Court was incorrect in finding that the extent of educational discrimination at issue in this case met the threshold of persecution required.
Country of Decision: Poland
Country of Applicant: Pakistan
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Visa
The Supreme Court granted the cassation complaint lodged by the Polish Ombudsman in the case of a persecuted journalist forced to leave the country together with her son and accused of deception in order to obtain attestation of false information (in a form of a visa issued by a Consul). The Supreme Court agreed that there was a reasonable doubt with regard to the circumstances of the case and the guilt of the defendant. In the view of the Court, even if the defendant acted in a way which could be defined as deception in order to obtain attestation of false information, the circumstances of...
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Unknown
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Request that charge be taken, Request to take back
The following question is referred to the CJEU under the expedited procedure provided for in Article 105 of the Rules of Procedure:Does Article 26 of the Dublin Regulation III prevent the competent authorities in a Member State, who have requested another Member State to take responsibility under a take back or take charge request of an applicant who has applied for international protection (which has not yet been ruled definitely upon) or any other person caught by Article 18(1)(c) or (d), from taking a transfer decision and notifying the applicant before the requested State has accepted...
Country of Decision: Belgium
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Armed conflict, Effective access to procedures, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Procedural guarantees, Visa
The Belgian Council for Alien Law Litigation has referred the following questions to the...
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
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...
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Rwanda
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Individual assessment, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Refugee Status, Well-founded fear
The French National Asylum Court (CNDA) must do a complete assessment of facts and circumstances in deciding whether an applicant should be granted refugee status, or failing that, subsidiary protection. In doing so, it must take into account all the documentation provided by the Applicant in support of the application. In this case, the Applicant’s medical evidence documentation and the evidence relating to the potential risks she is likely to face if she returns to her country (fear of persecution due to imputed political opinions) should have been taken into account.The CNDA did not...
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Iran, Sudan
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Personal circumstances of applicant, Reception conditions, Return, Vulnerable person
The Court of Appeal concluded that to send a refugee who has a residence permit in Italy and an asylum seeker back to the country would not violate Article 3 ECHR.The court further constrained the decision in Tarakhel to families with minor children.
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Chad
Keywords: Material reception conditions, Procedural guarantees
A Judge when hearing applications for interim measures may issue an injunction against the administration on the basis of Article L. 521 of the Code of Administrative Justice when the administration’s behaviour reveals a manifest disregard of any of the requirements within the right of asylum and such an action results in serious consequences for the asylum applicant, considering in particular his age, health status and family situation.There had been a gap of more than one month between the twenty-four hour reconsideration order made by the Judge hearing applications for interim measures,...