You are here
Home ›EDAL case summaries
Country of Applicant: Bangladesh
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Detention, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Procedural guarantees, Safe third country
When State Parties do not examine an application for international protection in its mertis based on a safe third country clause, Article 3 still requires that they apply a thorough and comprehensive legal procedure to assess the existence of such risk by looking into updated sources regarding the situation in the receiving third country. Hungary violated Article 3 by failing to conduct an efficient and adequate assessment when applying the safe third country clause for Serbia.
Article 5 cannot be considered as ratione materiae...
Date: 21-11-2019
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Accommodation centre, Best interest of the child, Duty of applicant, Material reception conditions, Reception conditions, Unaccompanied minor, Vulnerable person
A sanction imposed in response of serious breaches of the rules of the accommodation centre or of seriously violent behaviour on behalf of an applicant for international protection cannot include withdrawal of material reception conditions relating to housing, food or clothing, even if it is temporary. Authorities should take into particular consideration any such sanction in cases of vulnerable applicants and unaccompanied minors.
Date: 12-11-2019
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Effective remedy (right to), Final decision, Refugee Status
In order to guarantee that an applicant for international protection has an effective judicial remedy within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter, a national court or tribunal is required to vary a decision of the first-instance determining body that does not comply with its previous judgment. The court or tribunal must substitute its own decision on the application for international protection by disapplying, if necessary, the national law that prohibits it from proceeding in that way.
Date: 29-07-2019
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Delay, Detention, Return, Safe third country
Detention within the context of immigration must be lawful, not arbitrary and carried out in good faith. In this sense, the depriavation of liberty without a realistic prospect of removal is against the prevision of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
Date: 25-06-2019
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Detention, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Material reception conditions, Reception conditions, Torture, Unaccompanied minor, Vulnerable person
Conditions in police stations do not justify prolonged detention, while the child’s extreme vulnerability should prevail over irregular status with necessary measures adopted to protect them. Domestic authorities had not done all that could reasonably expected to fulfil their obligation in light of their vulnerability.
The authorities violated Article 5 by automatically applying the protective custody regime, without considering any alternatives to detention or the requirement under EU law to avoid the detention of children.
Date: 13-06-2019
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Accommodation centre, Best interest of the child, Child Specific Considerations, Detention, Family reunification, Health (right to), Material reception conditions, Reception conditions, Unaccompanied minor, Vulnerable person
Detention conditions in Greek police stations and living conditions in Idomeni Camp in northern Greece for five unaccompanied children were in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. A further violation was found in respect of Article 5 § 1 regarding the “protective custody” of unaccompanied children in police stations.
Date: 13-06-2019
Country of Decision: Italy
Country of Applicant: Ghana, Sudan
Keywords: Detention, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Non-refoulement, Real risk, Safe third country, Torture
The Court recognised self-defence in a case where migrants were charged with assault against a police officer following their rescue at sea and their impending return to Libya. Their well-founded fear of return to Libya provided the basis for their defence of duress.
Date: 23-05-2019
Country of Applicant: Algeria, Morocco
Keywords: Cessation of protection, Circumstances ceased to exist, Country of origin, Personal circumstances of applicant, Protection, Relevant Facts, Revocation of protection status, Stateless person, Subsidiary Protection, Well-founded fear
Member States are required to revoke subsidiary protection on the basis of art. 19(1), if they find out that the conditions that led to the granting of status were never met, regardless of whether the incorrect assessment of facts leading to the status is imputable exclusively to the national authority itself
Date: 23-05-2019
Country of Applicant: Congo (DRC), Ivory Coast, Russia, Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: Cessation of protection, Exclusion from protection, Non-refoulement, Refugee Status, Revocation of protection status, Serious non-political crime
The provisions of Article 14(4) to (6) of Directive 2011/95 cannot be interpreted as meaning that the effect of the revocation or the refusal of the refugee status is that the person concerned, who satisfies the material conditions set forth in Article 1A of the Geneva Convention, is excluded from international protection. Member States, when implementing Article 14(4) and (5) of the directive, are required to grant refugees who are present in their respective territories only the rights expressly referred to in Article 14(6) of that directive and the rights set out in the Geneva...
Date: 14-05-2019
Country of Applicant: Kosovo
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Family unity (right to), Personal circumstances of applicant, Return
It is necessary to make a proportionality assessment with consideration of both the gravity of the crime committed by the applicant and the interests of society, and the applicant’s individual rights, particularly his right to private and family life under Article 8.
The Federal Administrative Court failed to fully assess the impact that the measure of removal would have on the applicant. The evolution of the applicant's conduct since the occurrence of the crime, the applicant’s deteriorating medical condition, and his social, cultural and...
Date: 09-04-2019
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
- National Case law 1308
- ECrtHR Case law 239
- CJEU Case law 105
Filter by applicable legal provisions
- European Union Law 1281
- Council of Europe Instruments 642
- International Law 497
- UNHCR Handbook 100
Filter by keywords
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 261
- Subsidiary Protection 240
- Effective remedy (right to) 239
- Dublin Transfer 215
- Detention 214
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 211
- Refugee Status 211
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 209
- Credibility assessment 198
- Procedural guarantees 190
- Effective access to procedures 172
- Membership of a particular social group 157
- Country of origin information 151
- Internal protection 150
- Return 134
- Persecution (acts of) 119
- Real risk 115
- Responsibility for examining application 115
- Well-founded fear 113
- Family unity (right to) 110
- Reception conditions 108
- Individual assessment 103
- Personal circumstances of applicant 103
- Political Opinion 98
- Non-refoulement 94
- Serious harm 94
- Exclusion from protection 86
- Best interest of the child 84
- Subsequent application 84
- Burden of proof 83
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 81
- Protection 78
- Vulnerable person 77
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 76
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 75
- Standard of proof 73
- Child Specific Considerations 72
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 71
- Unaccompanied minor 71
- Indiscriminate violence 70
- Internal armed conflict 70
- Religion 69
- Gender Based Persecution 66
- Torture 66
- Relevant Documentation 65
- Family member 63
- Material reception conditions 63
- Safe third country 63
- Relevant Facts 61
- Request to take back 60
- Individual threat 59
- Family reunification 58
- Humanitarian considerations 58
- Personal interview 56
- Country of origin 53
- Previous persecution 53
- Actors of protection 52
- Discrimination 52
- Accelerated procedure 46
- Delay 46
- Obligation to give reasons 46
- Refugee sur place 46
- Sexual orientation 44
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 43
- Armed conflict 40
- Revocation of protection status 40
- Inadmissible application 38
- First country of asylum 37
- Terrorism 37
- Health (right to) 36
- Request that charge be taken 36
- Benefit of doubt 35
- Manifestly unfounded application 34
- Nationality 31
- Crime against humanity 28
- Dependant (Dependent person) 27
- Safe country of origin 27
- Access to the labour market 26
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 26
- Duty of applicant 25
- Race 25
- Final decision 23
- Serious non-political crime 23
- Accommodation centre 22
- Circumstances ceased to exist 22
- Residence document 22
- Stateless person 20
- Trafficking in human beings 19
- Cessation of protection 18
- Freedom of movement (right to) 18
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 18
- Visa 18
- War crimes 17
- Indirect refoulement 16
- Female genital mutilation 14
- Integration measures 14
- Country of former habitual residence 10
- International armed conflict 10
- More favourable provisions 10
- Death penalty / Execution 9
- Education (right to) 6
- Sponsor 6
- Withdrawal of protection application 6
- Temporary protection 4
- Genocide 3
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 194
- Iraq 117
- Iran 97
- Russia 90
- Nigeria 84
- Somalia 82
- Syria 78
- Turkey 57
- Unknown 51
- Pakistan 42
- Eritrea 40
- Russia (Chechnya) 38
- Sudan 35
- Congo (DRC) 34
- Algeria 33
- Sri Lanka 33
- Kosovo 27
- Morocco 21
- Cameroon 20
- Palestinian Territory 20
- Ukraine 20
- Armenia 18
- Albania 16
- Ethiopia 16
- Guinea 16
- Rwanda 16
- Ivory Coast 15
- Bangladesh 14
- China 14
- Georgia 14
- Lebanon 13
- Colombia 12
- Egypt 12
- Ghana 12
- Serbia 12
- Gambia 11
- Senegal 10
- Uzbekistan 10
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 9
- Sierra Leone 9
- Tunisia 9
- Belarus 8
- India 8
- Mali 8
- Angola 7
- Kyrgyzstan 7
- Mongolia 7
- Uganda 7
- Vietnam 7
- Azerbaijan 6
- Kazakhstan 6
- Libya 6
- Togo 6
- Zimbabwe 6
- Burundi 5
- Croatia 5
- France 5
- Mauritania 5
- South Africa 5
- Tanzania 5
- United Kingdom 5
- Bulgaria 4
- Jordan 4
- Kenya 4
- Lithuania 4
- Moldova 4
- United States 4
- Western Sahara 4
- Brazil 3
- China (Tibet) 3
- Cuba 3
- Liberia 3
- Macedonia 3
- Benin 2
- Bhutan 2
- Botswana 2
- Chad 2
- Congo (Republic of) 2
- Cyprus 2
- Germany 2
- Haiti 2
- Israel 2
- Kuwait 2
- Myanmar 2
- Niger 2
- North Korea 2
- Saudi Arabia 2
- Slovakia 2
- South Korea 2
- Tajikistan 2
- Austria 1
- Burkina Faso 1
- Central African Republic 1
- Comoros 1
- Czech Republic 1
- Djibouti 1
- Dominican Republic 1
- Ecuador 1
- Gabon 1
- Greece 1
- Guinea-Bissau 1
- Indonesia 1
- Italy 1
- Jamaica 1
- Madagascar 1
- Malawi 1
- Montenegro 1
- Namibia 1
- Nepal 1
- New Zealand 1
- Philippines 1
- Romania 1
- Thailand 1
- Zambia 1
Filter by country of decision
- France 163
- Germany 151
- United Kingdom 143
- Ireland 87
- Austria 80
- Belgium 75
- Sweden 74
- Czech Republic 58
- Netherlands 57
- Poland 57
- Greece 50
- Italy 50
- Spain 48
- Hungary 47
- Finland 42
- Slovenia 35
- Slovakia 30
- Denmark 25
- Luxembourg 15
- Switzerland 13
- Cyprus 6
- Portugal 1
