• A third-country national or stateless person who is below the age of 18 at the time of his or her entry into the territory of a Member State and of the introduction of his or her asylum application in that State, but who, in the course of the asylum procedure, attains the age of majority and is thereafter granted refugee status must be regarded as a ‘minor’ for the purposes of the Family Reunification Directive.

     
  • This journal entry argues that EU third country agreements violate non-refoulement obligations as defined under international law based on a number of reasons. First, EU third country agreements violate Article 31(1) of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees; second when read purposively, violating Article 31(1) would trigger corresponding protection from refoulement, most notably when a violation of Article 31(1) may lead to rejection at the frontier; finally, third country agreements as a form of migration control to deter claimants from reaching the territories of a State, would be both a form of penalisation of refugees’ illegal presence as well as a violation of non-refoulement obligations.

  • The possibility to lodge an asylum application in practice is a prerequisite for the effective protection of those in need of international protection. If access to the asylum procedure is not guaranteed by the national authorities, asylum applicants cannot benefit from the guarantees afforded to those under the asylum procedure

  • Luxembourg is the 22nd country to be added to EDAL. The country profile page gives readers a summary of asylum law and procedures in Luxembourg and the case summary page provides the latest asylum case law from the Luxembourg Administrative Tribunal. 

  • In VC, R (On the Application Of) v SSHD, the Court of Appeal found that the lack of an automatic independent review of immigration detention put mentally ill detainees at a substantial disadvantage. The Court ruled that since mentally ill detainees might lack the ability to initiate a bail application, they are unjustifiably discriminated against.

Latest News


UK: High Court criticises local Council for failure to provide accommodation to child refugees and to facilitate transition into adulthood

Date: 
Thursday, May 10, 2018

On 10 May 2018, the England and Wales High Court ruled in case KI, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Brent, which concerned a Sudanese national who arrived to the UK together with his cousin after being transferred from France on the application of the 

France: National Court of Asylum recognises refugee status to Venezuelan applicant fleeing persecution on grounds of sexual orientation

Date: 
Monday, April 23, 2018

On 23 April 2018, the French National Court of Asylum ruled in case no. 17052687, which concerned a Venezuelan national who had his asylum application rejected by the French administrative authorities in November 2017.

CJEU Judgment: Case C-181/16 Gnandi, 19 June 2018

Date: 
Tuesday, June 19, 2018

On 19 June 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in case C-181/16 Gnandi, which concerns a request

Latest Cases


Country of Decision: Slovakia , Country of Applicant: Afghanistan , Keywords: Návrat, Právo zostať v členskom štáte počas preskúmania žiadosti (Odkladný účinok), Zaistenie , Date of Decision: 29-07-2014

Odporca pochybil pri zadržaní žiadateľa v súlade s § 88a (1) (a) bod 1 zákona č 404/2011 Zb. o pobyte cudzincov a o zmene niektorých zákonov v konaní o správnom vyhostení na Ukrajinu napriek tomu, že si bol  vedomý zámeru žiadateľa požiadať o azyl. Odporca tiež nesprávne posúdil, či je Ukrajina bezpečnou treťou krajinou, pretože nevzal do úvahy informácie o aktuálnej situácií na Ukrajine. Taktiež, pri vyhodnocovaní rizika úteku odporca kládol neprípustné otázky a takýto postup je v rozpore s princípmi dobrej verejnej správy.

Country of Decision: Slovakia , Country of Applicant: Iran , Keywords: Dôvody prenasledovania, Následná žiadosť, Posúdenie dôveryhodnosti , Date of Decision: 13-09-2011

Vyhodnotenie osoby navrhovateľa za nedôveryhodnú len na základe toho, že navrhovateľ hneď pri vstupnom pohovore neuviedol všetky podrobnosti prípadu, tieto postupne konkretizoval, pričom tvrdenia navrhovateľa majú svoju vnútornú logiku, neprotirečia si a korešpondujú so situáciou v krajine pôvodu, nepovažuje odvolací súd za únosné, pretože argumentáciu o nedôveryhodnosti je možné použiť len za situácie, kedy by i ďalšie okolnosti svedčili o tom, že navrhovateľom tvrdené skutkové okolnosti nie sú pravdivé a to sa v danom prípade nepreukázalo.

Country of Decision: Slovakia , Country of Applicant: Palestinian Territory , Keywords: Ochrana, Vylúčenie z oprávnenia na doplnkovú ochranu , Date of Decision: 22-02-2011

Z jasného znenia čl. 1D Ženevského dohovoru vyplýva, že v ňom uvedená klauzula o vylúčení z postavenia utečenca sa vzťahuje iba na osoby, ktoré naozaj využívajú pomoc poskytovanú UNRWA, a je potrebné ju ako takú vykladať doslovne, čiže nemôže sa týkať takisto osôb, ktoré využívali alebo mohli využívať ochranu alebo pomoc. Na účely uplatnenia čl. 12 ods. 1 písm. a/ prvej vety Smernice podľa súdu osoba využíva ochranu alebo pomoc agentúry OSN, inej ako je UNHCR vtedy, keď táto osoba naozaj využíva túto ochranu alebo túto pomoc.

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 20 European 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 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).