You are here
Home ›EDAL case summaries
The fact that a person cannot be repatriated under Article 3 of the ECHR does not imply that that person should be granted a leave to reside in the host country by way of subsidiary protection under Directive 2004/83. The person concerned is eligible for subsidiary protection only if there is a real risk of him being intentionally deprived, in his country of origin, of appropriate health care.
The State Secretary has to carefully weigh interests when deciding about the application of Article 17 (discretionary clauses) of the Dublin Regulation where it concerns an adult applicant whose family members are beneficiaries of international protection in this Member State. The fact that an earlier request for family reunification has been refused, does not imply that the potentially destabilizing effect of a Dublin transfer no longer has to be taken into consideration.
§ 104 para. 13 S. 1 of AufenthG (Residence Law) impedes the claim of a person with subsidiary protection for the assessment of a case of non-refoulment referring to the situation in the state of origin according to § 60 Abs. 5 AufenthG and Art. 3 ECHR in order to enable family reunion due to the lack of a defensible interest.
The UK Secretary of State for the Home Department’s (SSHD) refusal to accede to a take charge request of a stateless wife and her child in Greece wishing to reunite with their British husband/father in the UK is a breach of Article 7 Charter/8 ECHR (and Article 6(1) of the HRA 1998) on the basis that the SSHD’s decisions were disproportionate and not justified. Notwithstanding that the husband/father is a British citizen, the Dublin Regulation applies, notably Articles 9 and 17(2). In respect of Article 9 Dublin Regulation III, it can be relied upon even where an individual in receipt of...
The complainant, an Eritrean citizen and a single woman with a one-and-a-half-year-old child, filed a complaint against the decision of the Danish Immigration Service to reject her application in accordance with the Danish Aliens Act art. 29 (b) as the Greek authorities had granted her refugee status in Greece, valid until 25 November 2017. The complainant referred to the UNHCR EXCOM-conclusion no. 58/1989.
The Board did not find that the general social and economic conditions for refugees with a residence permit in Greece – although difficult – in itself could lead to the...
The Court annulled the no. 10464/31.05.2017 Decision of the Director of the Asylum Service, on the basis of which, the restriction on the movement of applicants for international protection entering the Greek islands of Lesvos, Rhodes, Samos, Kos, Leros and Chios after the 20th of March 2016, was imposed. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the competent authority may not impose the contentious restriction on movement to applicants for international protection arriving in the Greek islands after the date of the publication of the judgment.
The rescuing actor is not only responsible for the search and rescue operations but should also consider the safety of disembarkation points in line with the principle of non-refoulement. The Open Arms ship conducted a reasonable assessment of the situation during the rescue operation, given that Libya could not be considered a country where the rescued migrants could be safely returned and Italy had already communicated an available place of safety.
it should be assessed whether the migrants – if rescued by the Libyan authorities...
The case concerns an application for the annulment of the decision of the Appeals Committee which rejected the applicant’s previous application to overturn the decision of the Regional Asylum Office of Samos whereby he was denied international protection. The Court determined that the case was inadmissible, accepted the relevant justifications given by the Appeals Committee and rejected the application.
An asylum applicant 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 still be regarded as a “minor” for the purposes of that provision.
The Council of State annulled the decision from the French national court on asylum (CNDA) after noting it had not examined the applicant’s submission that he did not have access to an interpreter during his personal interview for a re-examination of his asylum application. He had indeed appealed against the decision of the French immigration authorities (OFPRA) rejecting his claim despite his inability to be understood.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
- National Case law 1420
- ECrtHR Case law 254
- CJEU Case law 125
Filter by applicable legal provisions
- European Union Law 1404
- Council of Europe Instruments 707
- International Law 539
- UNHCR Handbook 102
Filter by keywords
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 280
- Subsidiary Protection 256
- Effective remedy (right to) 248
- Detention 240
- Dublin Transfer 233
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 229
- Refugee Status 222
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 216
- Credibility assessment 211
- Procedural guarantees 202
- Effective access to procedures 185
- Membership of a particular social group 163
- Return 163
- Country of origin information 161
- Internal protection 158
- Individual assessment 125
- Well-founded fear 124
- Real risk 122
- Persecution (acts of) 121
- Responsibility for examining application 121
- Family unity (right to) 120
- Reception conditions 117
- Personal circumstances of applicant 116
- Non-refoulement 102
- Political Opinion 102
- Serious harm 98
- Burden of proof 97
- Exclusion from protection 95
- Best interest of the child 93
- Vulnerable person 92
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 88
- Subsequent application 87
- Protection 82
- Child Specific Considerations 81
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 79
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 79
- Internal armed conflict 78
- Standard of proof 78
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 77
- Unaccompanied minor 76
- Family member 74
- Material reception conditions 73
- Indiscriminate violence 72
- Relevant Documentation 72
- Gender Based Persecution 71
- Religion 71
- Torture 69
- Family reunification 68
- Relevant Facts 67
- Safe third country 67
- Individual threat 63
- Humanitarian considerations 61
- Personal interview 61
- Request to take back 61
- Country of origin 58
- Previous persecution 57
- Actors of protection 55
- Discrimination 55
- Obligation to give reasons 51
- Delay 49
- Sexual orientation 49
- Inadmissible application 48
- Accelerated procedure 47
- Health (right to) 47
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 46
- Refugee sur place 46
- Armed conflict 42
- Revocation of protection status 42
- Terrorism 40
- First country of asylum 39
- Request that charge be taken 39
- Benefit of doubt 37
- Manifestly unfounded application 34
- Safe country of origin 33
- Access to the labour market 32
- Accommodation centre 32
- Nationality 31
- Residence document 30
- Crime against humanity 29
- Dependant (Dependent person) 29
- Duty of applicant 28
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 26
- Race 25
- Visa 25
- Circumstances ceased to exist 24
- Final decision 24
- Serious non-political crime 24
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 23
- Stateless person 22
- Freedom of movement (right to) 21
- Trafficking in human beings 20
- Cessation of protection 19
- Integration measures 18
- Indirect refoulement 17
- War crimes 17
- Female genital mutilation 15
- More favourable provisions 11
- Country of former habitual residence 10
- International armed conflict 10
- Death penalty / Execution 9
- Education (right to) 8
- Sponsor 8
- Withdrawal of protection application 8
- Temporary protection 4
- Genocide 3
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 218
- Iraq 125
- Iran 104
- Russia 92
- Syria 92
- Nigeria 88
- Somalia 84
- Turkey 60
- Unknown 59
- Pakistan 45
- Eritrea 43
- Russia (Chechnya) 41
- Algeria 37
- Sudan 37
- Congo (DRC) 36
- Sri Lanka 35
- Kosovo 27
- Palestinian Territory 25
- Morocco 23
- Ukraine 22
- Cameroon 21
- Guinea 19
- Ivory Coast 19
- Armenia 18
- Albania 17
- Ethiopia 16
- Lebanon 16
- Rwanda 16
- China 15
- Bangladesh 14
- Georgia 14
- Ghana 14
- Colombia 13
- Gambia 13
- Tunisia 13
- Egypt 12
- Serbia 12
- Senegal 11
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 10
- Sierra Leone 10
- Uzbekistan 10
- Mali 9
- Belarus 8
- India 8
- Kyrgyzstan 8
- Vietnam 8
- Angola 7
- Kazakhstan 7
- Mongolia 7
- Uganda 7
- Azerbaijan 6
- France 6
- Libya 6
- South Africa 6
- Togo 6
- United Kingdom 6
- Zimbabwe 6
- Burundi 5
- Croatia 5
- Mauritania 5
- Tanzania 5
- Bulgaria 4
- Jordan 4
- Kenya 4
- Lithuania 4
- Moldova 4
- United States 4
- Western Sahara 4
- Brazil 3
- China (Tibet) 3
- Cuba 3
- Germany 3
- Liberia 3
- Macedonia 3
- Benin 2
- Bhutan 2
- Botswana 2
- Chad 2
- Congo (Republic of) 2
- Cyprus 2
- Haiti 2
- Israel 2
- Kuwait 2
- Myanmar 2
- Niger 2
- North Korea 2
- Saudi Arabia 2
- Slovakia 2
- South Korea 2
- Tajikistan 2
- Venezuela 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
- Poland 1
- Romania 1
- Thailand 1
- Zambia 1
Filter by country of decision
- France 177
- Germany 162
- United Kingdom 149
- Austria 97
- Ireland 88
- Belgium 85
- Sweden 74
- Netherlands 66
- Spain 62
- Greece 59
- Czech Republic 58
- Poland 58
- Italy 52
- Hungary 47
- Finland 42
- Slovenia 35
- Slovakia 30
- Denmark 25
- Switzerland 17
- Luxembourg 16
- Portugal 13
- Cyprus 7