You are here
Home › Relevant Facts › European Union Law › EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011 › Standard of proof ›EDAL case summaries
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Burden of proof, Credibility assessment, Detention, Duty of applicant, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Individual threat, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Persecution (acts of), Real risk, Refugee Status, Relevant Documentation, Relevant Facts, Standard of proof, Subsequent application, Well-founded fear
The Court found a violation of Article 3 in relation to a subsequent application for asylum, which had been rejected on the basis that it contained no new elements indicating that the Applicants ran a real risk of being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment on deportation to Russia. Because new information had in fact been provided, the national authorities were under an obligation to thoroughly review the information in order to assure themselves that the Applicants’ rights under Article 3 would be safeguarded.
Date: 19-01-2016
Country of Decision: Poland
Country of Applicant: Ukraine
Keywords: Individual assessment, Internal protection, Relevant Facts, Standard of proof
General situation in the country of origin, however difficult, does not justify granting refugee status, if there is no or only some small risk of persecutions (such risk can never be actually eliminated). However the authority is obliged to individually assess the situation of a particular applicant. This is not possible without careful examination of all the letters submitted by the applicant during the proceedings before the first and the second instance. Failure to do this cannot be validated by the Court by determining the facts on its own, since it would lead to de facto ...
Date: 13-08-2015
Country of Decision: Poland
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Family unity (right to), Relevant Facts, Standard of proof
The possibility of submitting evidence for assessment is a basic procedural guarantee. Thus, if the party’s argumentation is based on defined circumstances, essential for his/her case, the responsible authority should hear witnesses and get acquainted with the evidence gathered within asylum proceedings handled by relevant authorities in another EU Member State.
Date: 16-10-2014
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Relevant Facts filterRelevant Facts
- (-) Remove Standard of proof filterStandard of proof
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 1
- Burden of proof 1
- Credibility assessment 1
- Detention 1
- Duty of applicant 1
- Effective access to procedures 1
- Effective remedy (right to) 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- Individual assessment 1
- Individual threat 1
- Internal protection 1
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 1
- Persecution (acts of) 1
- Real risk 1
- Refugee Status 1
- Relevant Documentation 1
- Subsequent application 1
- Well-founded fear 1
Filter by country of decision
- Poland 2
