You are hereHome › Personal circumstances of applicant ›
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: 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: Afghanistan
Keywords: Material reception conditions, Personal circumstances of applicant, Reception conditions, Vulnerable person
Taking into account, on the one hand relevant facts applicable to the administration and on the other hand facts relevant to the personal situation of the applicant, the Council of State rejects an appeal directed against a court order from the Administrative Tribunal of Toulouse denying the applicant’s accommodation request due to the lack of urgency of the applicant’s situation.
Country of Decision: Slovenia
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Non-refoulement, Personal circumstances of applicant, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application
The Constitutional Court ruled that Member States are obliged to examine all circumstances which are important from the perspective of the principle of non-refoulement, when deciding on a Dublin transfer to a responsible Member State. Due to the absolute nature of the protection afforded by the principle of non-refoulement, the assessment must take into account all the circumstances of the particular case, including the applicant's personal situation in the transferring country. In this context, it should also be assessed whether the mere removal of an individual to another country due to...
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Dublin Transfer, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Personal circumstances of applicant
In order for a correct application of the responsibility determination procedure under Dublin III to take place the applicant must be able to contest a transfer decision and invoke an infringement of the rule set out in subparagraph 19(2) DR III, i.e. where the applicant provides evidence that he/she has left the territory of one Member State, having made an application there, for at least three months and has made a new asylum application in another Member State.
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Internal protection, Personal circumstances of applicant, Procedural guarantees, Relevant Documentation, Relevant Facts
The decision of the Administrative Court Düsseldorf of January 8, 2016 - 23 L 3974 / 15.A, which ordered the removal of the complainant to Bulgaria, breaches his fundamental right under Article 3, paragraph 1 of Basic Law in its manifestation as a general prohibition on arbitrariness. The Administrative Court should have more closely scrutinised the newly available information on the situation pertaining to asylum seekers and persons with international protection status in Bulgaria. The decision of the Administrative Court Düsseldorf is repealed and the case is referred back to the...
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.
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Dublin Transfer, Family member, Family reunification, Family unity (right to), Humanitarian considerations, Inadmissible application, Individual assessment, Personal circumstances of applicant, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Subsequent application
A member state may derogate from Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 (the “Dublin-III-Regulation“), by examining an application for international protection despite the fact that the members state is not responsible for the examination according to the criteria laid down in the Dublin-III-Regulation.When assessing Article 17 (1) of the Dublin-III-Regulation (the discretionary clause), the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (the “Federal Office”) must give priority to the best interest of the child and the right to respect of family...