• This blog assess the gaps present in the Qualification Directive with regards to refugees with disabilities. Persons with disabilities are neither included within the definition of Particular Social Group nor are they accomodated for in the definition given to acts of persecution in the Directive. Given that EU Member States are bound by the international obligations of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, this blog calls upon the EU to take into account the specific situation of refugees with disabilities and provide a framework for protection that is in line with the Convention. 

  • The Supreme Court of Republic Slovenia has referred a request for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU on the interpretation to be given to Articles 3 and 17 of the Dublin III Regulation in the case that concerns a transfer to Croatia under the Dublin III Regulation.

  • The Belgian Council for Alien Law Litigation has referred a series of questions to the Court of Justice on the application and interpretation to be given to Article 25(1) of the Visa Code.

  • The blog aims to demonstrate that the system of self-identification of vulnerable persons in the international protection proceedings, applicable in Poland prior to the transposition of the recast Procedure and Reception Directives, can give rise to breaches of Article 5 of the ECHR. It also examines the possible impact of the post-transposition legal framework in Poland on detention practices for those who are vulnerable.

  • The navigation and use of Country of Origin information by the European Court of Human Rights has been, up until now, a relatively unexplored area. This blog, however, examines in depth how the ECtHR has established a specific framework on the use of COI in its own case law, namely the collection, assessment, and determination of COI. Whilst this framework has been created by the Court itself it rarely abides by it, leading to a COI methodology which is porous and contradictory and a judgment which determines the fate of the individual as well as State practice elsewhere.

Latest News


France: Allowance insufficient for asylum seekers without accommodation

Date: 
Friday, December 23, 2016

In a judgment of 23 December 2016, the French Council of State examined the appropriateness of the level of the ADA (Allocation pour demandeur d’asileallowance for asylum seekers) for asylum seekers who

The Netherlands: Decrease in number of reception places in Italian SPRAR locations does not prevent transfer of particularly vulnerable foreign nationals to Italy

Date: 
Friday, December 9, 2016

On 9 December 2016 the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State has judged that the decrease in the number of reception places in the Italian SPRAR centers does not prevent the Dublin transfer of extremely vulnerable foreign nationals to Italy.

ECtHR - Abuhmaid v. Ukraine (no. 31183/13) [Articles 8 and 13], 12 January 2017

Date: 
Thursday, January 12, 2017

On the 12th of January 2017, the European Court of Human Rights gave its ruling in the case of Abuhmaid v. Ukraine (no. 31183/13), concerning a Palestinian national residing in Ukraine.

Latest Cases


País de la Sentencia: Spain , País del Solicitante: Kazakhstan , Palabras Clave: Protección, Tutela judicial efectiva (derecho a), Valoración de los hechos y de las circunstancias , Número de Registro de la Sentencia: 23-02-2015

El Tribunal Supremo concluyó que la Audiencia Nacional habría errado al anular la resolución administrativa de la Subdirección General de Asilo (Ministerio del Interior) en la que se denegaba la solicitud de asilo del Recurrente. En este sentido, la Audiencia Nacional anuló la resolución pero no admitió la pretensión principal del Recurrente: la solicitud del reconocimiento de asilo.

Dado que la Audiencia Nacional estaba en posesión de todos los elementos necesarios para pronunciarse sobre el fondo de la solicitud de protección internacional planteada por el Recurrente, la Audiencia Nacional estaba en efecto capacitada para adjudicar. Por tanto, el Tribunal Supremo admitió el recurso.

País de la Sentencia: Spain , País del Solicitante: Syria , Palabras Clave: Centro de acogida, Conflicto armado interno, Documentación pertinente, Estatuto de refugiado, Evaluación de la credibilidad, Protección subsidiaria , Número de Registro de la Sentencia: 15-12-2015

El estatuto de refugiado debe reconocerse si concurre el presupuesto de temor fundado de sufrir persecución por los motivos contemplados en la Convención sobre el Estatuto de Refugiados de Ginebra de 1951. La evaluación de la solicitud de asilo debe fundamentarse en una ponderada valoración de los hechos y circunstancias personales del solicitante de asilo, así como en el análisis de la naturaleza del riesgo. Este examen no ha de efectuarse con criterios restrictivos, siendo suficiente, que la autoridad competente alcance una convicción racional de que concurren dichos requisitos para poder reconocer la condición de asilado.

País de la Sentencia: Spain , Número de Registro de la Sentencia: 11-05-2015

El trascurso de un periodo de más de tres años entre la presentación de la demanda contra la orden de expulsión del territorio nacional y la vista oral de la demanda supone la violación del derecho del demandante a un proceso sin dilaciones indebidas de conformidad con el criterio del Tribunal Constitucional. Dicho criterio tiene en cuenta, entre otros factores, la complejidad del caso y la duración media de los litigios del mismo tipo.

About EDAL


The European Database of Asylum Law (EDAL) is an online database co-ordinated by the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and a compilation of summaries of refugee and asylum case law from the courts of 19 EU Member States, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The summaries are published in English and in the relevant Member State’s national language.

For more information please see here.

If you are interested in contributing an article on a relevant subject to the EDAL blog or would like to inform us about an important national judgment, please kindly send an email to Amanda Taylor (ataylor@ecre.org) or Julia Zelvenska (jzelvenska@ecre.org).