You are hereHome › Individual assessment ›
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: 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: France
Country of Applicant: Congo (DRC)
Keywords: Detention, Dublin Transfer, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Personal interview, Request to take back
The applicant had sufficiently established that if returned to Hungary under the Dublin Regulation he would not benefit from an examination of his asylum application in line with procedural guarantees as required by the right to asylum. Such a transfer decision thus violated Article 4 of the Charter.
Country of Decision: Belgium
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, Dublin Transfer, Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Reception conditions, Responsibility for examining application
The transfer of asylum seekers from Belgium to Austria, under the Dublin Regulation, is contrary to the principle of due diligence, because the government has failed to obtain information on the effects of the moratorium of the processing of asylum applications in Austria.
Country of Decision: Poland
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Individual assessment, Return
Limiting the possibility to access classified information to the third country national does not automatically mean that their right to an effective remedy with regard to a return order was infringed. By the same token there has been no infringement of Article 47 of the Charter.
Country of Decision: Hungary
Country of Applicant: China
Keywords: Individual assessment, Refugee sur place, Subsequent application
The applicant arrived in Hungary as a child and her affiliation with Falun Gong was not properly adjudicated by the asylum authority (OIN) but her asylum application made as an adult was considered a subsequent one. Relying on Article 5 (3) of the Recast Qualification Directive, the OIN considered that the applicant and her mother were malevolent when joining Falun gong solely to evoke their sur place status. The court ruled that the OIN failed to individually assess the applicant’s claim and quashed the decision.
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Individual assessment, Obligation/Duty to cooperate
The case considered an appeal by the London Borough of Croydon (“Croydon”) to have Y’s claim for damages for wrongful detention stayed pending the resolution of Y’s challenge to the assessment of his age undertaken by Croydon.The Appellant submitted that the judge erred in holding that the principles in Starr v National Coal Board  1 WLR 63 (“Starr”) did not apply to this case. The Respondent argued that the Starr principles could not apply to this case. The Court upheld Croydon’s appeal, holding that the order sought by...
Country of Decision: Netherlands
Country of Applicant: Mali
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Country of origin information, Individual assessment, Internal protection, Manifestly unfounded application, Personal circumstances of applicant, Unaccompanied minor
The three cumulative prerequisites for an internal protection alternative are not fulfilled, as it cannot be reasonably expected of the refugee to settle in the proposed part of the country. The UNHCR’s reasonability test is comparable with the national legislation’s one and UNHCR defines the internal protection alternative as ‘unreasonable’.
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.