You are hereHome › Political Opinion ›
EDAL case summaries
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: Germany
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Country of origin information, Duty of applicant, Political Opinion, Refugee Status, Religion, Subsidiary Protection, Torture
When deciding whether refugee status should be available , one must not only consider any pre-persecution but also post-flight circumstances. Judged on a forward looking basis of persecution of political enemies within Syrian territory, upon return to Syria there continues to be a danger of individual persecution including human rights violations by reason of belonging to a certain group.
Country of Applicant: Sudan
Keywords: Country of origin information, Female genital mutilation, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Political Opinion, Real risk, Refugee Status
The return of a third country national woman or girl to a country where female genital mutilation is traditionally practised is not a breach of Art. 3 of the Convention where her family (including her possible husband) has the will and the possibility to ensure that she will not be subjected to that practice.
Country of Decision: Italy
Country of Applicant: Gambia
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Individual assessment, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Personal circumstances of applicant, Political Opinion, Real risk, Refugee Status, Subsidiary Protection
The Italian consolidated Law on Migration (Art. 5(6) n. 286/1998) requires humanitarian protection to be given where a person is in a situation of vulnerability. Such a situation occurs when the applicant’s constitutional and international fundamental rights, such as health and nutrition, are compromised.
Country of Applicant: Iran
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, Country of origin information, Final decision, Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Membership of a particular social group, Non-refoulement, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Personal circumstances of applicant, Political Opinion, Protection, Refugee Status, Refugee sur place, Religion, Return
An Article 3 compliant assessment requires a full and ex nunc evaluation of a claim. Where the State is made aware of facts that could expose an applicant to an individual risk of ill-treatment, regardless of whether the applicant chooses to rely on such facts, it is obliged to assess this risk ex proprio motu.
Country of Decision: Ireland
Country of Applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Best interest of the child, Credibility assessment, Membership of a particular social group, Obligation to give reasons, Political Opinion, Relevant Documentation
The case dealt primarily with the standard of reasoning required in credibility assessment among other issues (travel findings and best interests of the child). In quashing the RAT decision, the High Court ruled that the RAT had not met the standard of reasoning required in assessment of the credibility of oral testimony (as established in the jurisprudence of the Court and EU law), reiterating the obligation upon the decision maker to ensure that each negative credibility finding is accompanied by an adequate rationale clearly outlining the reasons for such findings.
Country of Decision: Slovenia
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN, Armed conflict, Crime against humanity, International armed conflict, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Political Opinion, Refugee Status, War crimes
The assigned political belief of an individual, his desertion or avoiding being drafted in the army are sufficient to grant a refugee status to an individual, if there is a connection between the reasons for persecution and the acts of persecution in line with Article 1.A of the Geneva Convention 1951 in a situation of an armed conflict.
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Persecution (acts of), Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Political Opinion, Refugee Status, Well-founded fear
There is a real risk that by virtue of his predicted employment in the media sector the Appellant will be persecuted for political opinion and/or that a breach of his rights under Articles 2 and 3 ECHR will occur.The Appellant is not to be denied refugee status on the ground that it would be open to him to seek to engage in employment other than in the journalistic or media sector.
Country of Applicant: Turkey
Keywords: Detention, Health (right to), Material reception conditions, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Political Opinion, Reception conditions, Refugee Status, Serious harm, Subsidiary Protection, Torture, Well-founded fear
In this judgement, the Court held that there was a violation of article 3 of the Convention concerning the detention conditions of the applicant at the premises of the executive subcommittee of the Thessaloniki foreign police. There was also a violation of article 5 para 1 (f) concerning the duration of his detention and para 4 with regards to the judicial review of his detention.
Country of Applicant: United States
Keywords: Armed conflict, Discrimination, International armed conflict, Persecution (acts of), Political Opinion, Relevant Facts, War crimes, Well-founded fear
The judgment concerns the status of military deserters under the Qualification Directive (2004/83/EC) and the definition to be accorded to persecutory acts following on from a refusal to perform military service. Whilst the definition of military service is to include support staff the CJEU has held that there must be a sufficient link between the asylum seeker’s actions and the preparation or eventual commission of war crimes. The individual must establish with sufficient plausibility that his unit is highly likely to commit war crimes and that there exists a body of evidence...