EDAL case summaries
The judgment examined whether returns of asylum seekers to Bulgaria would be contrary to their Article 3 rights. The court held that the Bulgarian system has significantly improved since the UNHCR report in 2014 which prohibited returns of asylum seekers. As a result the returns would not be in breach of Article 3.
In this case the applicants argued unsuccessfully that the decision of the UK designated authority for determining asylum claims (the Secretary of State for the Home Department) regarding an applicant’s age should be accepted by other government bodies.
This case concerned the concept of ‘safe country’ within the Dublin system and respect for fundamental rights of asylum seekers. The Court held that EU law prevents the application of a conclusive presumption that Member States observe all the fundamental rights of the European Union. Art. 4 Charter must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may not transfer an asylum seeker to the Member State responsible within the meaning of the Regulation where they cannot be unaware that systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions of asylum seekers in that...
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- Dublin Transfer 2
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Credibility assessment 1
- Detention 1
- Effective access to procedures 1
- Effective remedy (right to) 1
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 1
- Material reception conditions 1
- Non-refoulement 1
- Responsibility for examining application 1
- Safe third country 1
Filter by country of applicant
- (-) Remove Afghanistan filterAfghanistan
- (-) Remove Iran filterIran
- Iraq 1
- Nigeria 1