EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Iraq
Keywords: Subsidiary Protection, Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict, Procedural guarantees
The Court quashed a country guidance decision on the application of Art 15(c) of the Qualification Directive in Iraq because the Tribunal had not considered what was necessary to ensure that it heard proper argument in a case designed to give binding guidance for other applicants.
Date: 13-12-2011
Legal Provisions Cited: Legislation - UK, Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, Tribunals Practice Directions 10/1/2010, Qualification Directive, Art 15 (c), Art 15
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Religion, Subsidiary Protection, Serious harm, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Individual threat, Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict, Armed conflict, Burden of proof, Credibility assessment
In this case the Tribunal considered the general country situation in Somalia as at the date of decision for five applicants, both men and women from Mogadishu, south or central Somalia, Somaliland and Puntland. The risk of female genital mutilation (FGM) was also considered.
Date: 28-11-2011
Legal Provisions Cited: 1951 Refugee Convention, Art 1A, CFREU, Art 18, Art 47, ECHR, Art 3, Qualification Directive, Art 10, Art 13, Art 15 (c), Art 15, Art 2, Art 8.1, Art 8, Art 9
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Iraq
Keywords: Subsidiary Protection, Real risk, Serious harm, Individual threat, Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict, Assessment of facts and circumstances, Circumstances ceased to exist, Revocation of protection status
When establishing the necessary “density of danger” in an internal armed conflict within the meaning of Section 60 (7) (2) Residence Act/Art. 15 (c) Qualification Directive, it is not sufficient to quantitatively determine the number of victims in the conflict. It is necessary to carry out an “evaluating overview” of the situation, which takes into account the situation of the health system. However, this issue was not decisive in the present case, as the applicant would only face a low risk of being seriously harmed.
Date: 17-11-2011
Legal Provisions Cited: ECHR, Art 3, Qualification Directive, Art 4.4, Art 4, Art 15 (b), Art 15, Art 15 (c), Art 18, Art 2 (e), Art 2, Art 2 (f), Recital 3
Country of Decision: Sweden
Country of Applicant: Kenya, Somalia
Keywords: Subsidiary Protection, Serious harm, Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict
If an applicant has serious criticism of a language test conducted to determine their country of origin, the Migration Board must investigate the grounds before making a decision, or at least respond to the applicant's criticism so that the submission can be completed.If the Migration Court considers a language test report to be unreliable or inadequate, it can decide to request a new language analysis or return the case to the Migration Board for further investigation, but cannot choose to ignore the analysis entirely.
Date: 07-09-2011
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Political Opinion, Subsidiary Protection, Serious harm, Individual threat, Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict, Internal protection, Personal circumstances of applicant, Subsequent application
The applicant was eligible for subsidiary protection as an internal armed conflict is taking place in Logar. The applicant, in case of return to Afghanistan, could not relocate to Kabul, since he could not secure his livelihood there. In order to secure his livelihood, he could not rely on property which his family had possessed in the province of Logar.
Date: 25-08-2011
Legal Provisions Cited: 1951 Refugee Convention, Art 1A(2), Qualification Directive, Art 4.3, Art 4, Art 15 (c), Art 15, Art 8
Country of Decision: Spain
Country of Applicant: Ivory Coast
Keywords: Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Race, Religion, Subsidiary Protection, Serious harm, Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict, Safe third country
The applicant claimed asylum in November 2009 alleging a well founded fear of persecution for reasons of race and religion. The application was refused by the Ministry of Interior on the grounds that the application did not amount to persecution in accordance with the 1951 Refugee Convention. On appeal, the High National Court re-examined the application and held that the conflict which had arisen in the Ivory Coast had to be taken into account and on that basis subsidiary protection should be granted.
Date: 08-07-2011
Legal Provisions Cited: ECHR, Art 3, Legislation - Spain, Asylum Law 12/2009 Art 4
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Russia, Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: Internal armed conflict, Exclusion from protection, Crime against humanity, War crimes, Internal protection
A former Chechen fighter was not excluded from refugee status as active participation in the Second Chechen War in itself does not constitute a war crime. The clashes that have taken place in Chechnya since 1999 represent an internal armed conflict according to Art. 8 of the ICC Statute.
Date: 24-06-2011
Legal Provisions Cited: ICC Statute, Art 7, Art 8, Art 8.2 (c), Art 8.2 (e), Qualification Directive, Art 4.4, Art 4, Art 8
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Iraq
Keywords: Subsidiary Protection, Real risk, Serious harm, Individual threat, Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict, Child Specific Considerations
The question of whether the current situation in Iraq is an internal armed conflict (nationwide or regionally) according to Section 60 (7) (2) Residence Act/Art. 15 (c) Qualification Directive was left open. Even if one assumes that such a conflict takes place, subsidiary protection is only to be granted if the applicant is exposed to a serious and individual threat to life or physical integrity “in the course of” such a conflict. This cannot be established regarding the applicant in the present case.
Date: 13-04-2011
Legal Provisions Cited: Qualification Directive, Art 15 (c), Art 15
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Subsidiary Protection, Individual threat, Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict
The situation which prevails today in some geographical areas of Somalia, in particular in and around Mogadishu, must be seen as a situation of generalised violence resulting from a situation of internal armed conflict, in the meaning of Article L.712-1 c) Ceseda [which transposes Article 15 (c) of the Qualification Directive].
Date: 31-03-2011
Legal Provisions Cited: 1951 Refugee Convention, Art 1A(2), Legislation - France, Ceseda Art L.712-1
Country of Decision: Finland
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Subsidiary Protection, Internal armed conflict, Country of origin information, Credibility assessment, Internal protection
The Court found that the province of Ghazni, Afghanistan was still unstable and unsafe for the local population due to the presence of an internal armed conflict. However the security situation in Kabul had not deteriorated to the extent to be classified as an internal armed conflict.
Date: 23-03-2011
Pages
Languages
Current search
Search found 40 items
- [all case summaries]
- (-) Remove Internal armed conflict filterInternal armed conflict
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Internal armed conflict filterInternal armed conflict
- Subsidiary Protection 37
- Indiscriminate violence 29
- Serious harm 22
- Individual threat 18
- Internal protection 12
- Real risk 8
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 7
- Armed conflict 4
- Credibility assessment 4
- Revocation of protection status 4
- Country of origin information 3
- Exclusion from protection 3
- Humanitarian considerations 3
- Membership of a particular social group 3
- Religion 3
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 2
- Burden of proof 2
- Circumstances ceased to exist 2
- Gender Based Persecution 2
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2
- International armed conflict 2
- Personal circumstances of applicant 2
- Political Opinion 2
- Race 2
- War crimes 2
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Crime against humanity 1
- Individual assessment 1
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 1
- Persecution (acts of) 1
- Previous persecution 1
- Procedural guarantees 1
- Safe third country 1
- Serious non-political crime 1
- Standard of proof 1
- Subsequent application 1
- Terrorism 1
Filter by EU legal provisions applicable
Filter by legal provisions cited:
- Qualification Directive 27
- 1951 Refugee Convention 14
- ECHR 8
- Additional Protocol II 1977 6
- Legislation - France 6
- Fourth Geneva Convention 1949 5
- Additional Protocol I 1977 3
- ICC Statute 3
- Legislation - Sweden 3
- CFREU 2
- UNHCR Handbook 2
- ECHR (Sixth Protocol) 1
- ECHR (Thirteenth Protocol) 1
- Legislation - Spain 1
- Legislation - UK 1
- Returns Directive 1
- TFEU 1
Filter by case law cited:
Filter by country of decision
Filter by country of applicant
- Iraq 15
- Afghanistan 8
- Somalia 8
- Russia 3
- Russia (Chechnya) 3
- Sri Lanka 2
- Burundi 1
- Colombia 1
- Ivory Coast 1
- Kenya 1
- Nigeria 1
