You are here
Home ›EDAL case summaries
The French National Court on Asylum (CNDA) based its reasoning on the CJEU jurisprudence according to which the Article 14 of the Directive 2011/95/EU transposed in Article L.711-6 CESEDA, allows revocation of refugee status, but does not imply that the refugee protection ceases. The international refugee protection under the Article 1 (A) (2) of the Geneva Convention continues to be applicable to the Applicant.
Even if not explicitly referred to in domestic laws, such as the Civil Code, those previsions on subsidiary protection should be interpreted in light of international law. Therefore, even if the literal interpretation of article 22.3 of the Civil Code only refers to asylum, the consideration of the social context and international law would call for an extension of this provision on reduced residency requirements to also cover those holding subsidiary protection status.
The Court of Appeal found the "one-off" expedited procedure in place from 2016-2017 in Calais for unaccompanied children with family members, siblings or relatives in the UK and operated by the British and French authorities to fall below the requirements of procedural fairness as a matter of common law.
The applicant, an ethnic Samia and Christian Protestant from Mukono, Uganda, became aware of his sexual orientation when he was between 7 and 9 years old and has had several both short and longer relations with men.
The Refugee Appeals Board accepted the applicants account which included imprisonment and physical and sexual abuse as well as harassment by village locals. Consequently, the Board found that the applicant was at risk of persecution by his family and locals against which no protection by the authorities could be obtained. Therefore, the applicant was granted refugee...
There are systemic deficiencies in the Italian asylum procedure and in its reception conditions for asylum applicants which amount to inhuman or degrading treatment.
When applying art. 1.F) of the Convention, there is a need of proving that the appellant is a concrete danger for the national security. As it is a restriction for the right of asylum, this provision should be applied restrictively. In the instant case, there is no sufficient indication that the applicant constitutes danger to national security.
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- Dublin Transfer 2
- Effective access to procedures 2
- Country of origin information 1
- Discrimination 1
- Effective remedy (right to) 1
- Exclusion from protection 1
- Individual assessment 1
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 1
- Material reception conditions 1
- Membership of a particular social group 1
- Political Opinion 1
- Reception conditions 1
- Refugee Status 1
- Relevant Facts 1
- Request to take back 1
- Revocation of protection status 1
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 1
- Sexual orientation 1
- Subsidiary Protection 1
- Terrorism 1
- Unaccompanied minor 1
- Well-founded fear 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Iraq 1
- Kazakhstan 1
- Russia (Chechnya) 1
- Sudan 1
- Uganda 1
- Venezuela 1
Filter by country of decision
- Spain 3
- France 2
- Denmark 1
- United Kingdom 1