• 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


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 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).