EDAL case summaries
Netherlands – Court of The Hague, 19 October 2020, NL20.15181, NL20.15183, NL20.15188 and NL20.15194
The reception conditions for beneficiaries of international protection in Bulgaria are such that they may face severe material deprivation due to “indifference” on the part of the authorities (cfr. CJEU, Ibrahim), potentially amounting to a violation of Article 3 ECHR / Article 4 CFREU.
When the State Secretary decides that a request for international protection is not admissible, because the applicants have refugee status in Bulgaria, it is not sufficient for him to refer to the principle of mutual trust between EU Member States and to...
The governmental authority is requesting an authorization to detain an immigrant after an alleged infraction of article 53 of the Organic Law 4/2000 in order to guarantee the enforcement of a possible return procedure. Following the procedures detailed in article 62 of said law, the Court assessed the particular circumstances of the case, including the risk of nonappearance and the possible existence of previous administrative sanctions of the subject, concluding that the lack of roots in the Spanish territory and the fact that he already filled in an asylum application...
A stateless person from Palestine who was registered by UNRWA and received its assistance shall not be excluded from refugee status when it is established that his personal safety in Palestine is at serious risk and it is impossible for UNRWA to guarantee that the living conditions, which has forced the individual to leave Palestine, are compatible with its mission.
From the available evidence, the Court concludes that UNRWA is unable to provide protection and assistance to Palestinian refugees in Gaza.
In the case of an Afghan Shia Hazara applicant, the Belgian Council for Alien Litigation considered that the request for international protection was based on several sources of fear, which must be analysed in combination with each other, forming a cluster of concordant evidence.
The Council granted the applicant refugee status.
The fact that an asylum seeker has already been persecuted in the past or has been subject to direct threats of persecution, was considered as a well-founded argument to believe that the applicant would face the risk to be persecuted under Article 1, Section A §2 of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Germany is responsible for the asylum determination of an oppositional Turkish applicant under Art. 3 para. 2 subparas 2 and 3 Dublin III Regulation, because in this individual case the Bulgarian asylum procedure has systemic flaws that would entail a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. A serious examination of the asylum application cannot be expected by the Bulgarian authorities and the authorities will likely return the applicant to Turkey. In such a case, there are reasonable grounds for believing that there would be a violation of Article 3 of the...
Given the emergency of the situation, family reunification could only be refused in circumstances where the relevant individual does not comply with principles of public order.
As a result, the Court concluded that there were serious doubts as to the legality of the decisions refusing family reunification.
The parents and minor siblings of a Syrian national, who was recognised as a refugee, cannot claim refugee status in terms of international protection for family members, if the beneficiary, although a minor when he was registered as an asylum applicant, was no longer a minor at the time of the court hearing.
In a case of an asylum application on the grounds of gender based persecution, supported by medical reports, the Belgian Council of State held that it belongs to the asylum authorities to investigate the origin of injuries, whose nature and seriousness imply a presumption of treatment contrary to article 3 ECHR and to assess the risks they reveal.
Without this assessment, the judge cannot legally conclude that the Applicant does not establish that he has been persecuted or has suffered serious harm or been subjected to direct threats of such...
In view of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Swiss authorities should obtain formal and detailed guarantees on care and accommodation from the Italian authorities before transferring families and vulnerable persons to Italy under the Dublin III Regulation.
This is because Decree-law 113/218 on Public safety and Immigration in Italy has deeply reformed the Italian refugee reception system.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
- (-) Remove National Case law filterNational Case law
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 88
- Dublin Transfer 86
- Subsidiary Protection 82
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 64
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 57
- Family unity (right to) 56
- Refugee Status 55
- Detention 54
- Effective remedy (right to) 53
- Country of origin information 50
- Responsibility for examining application 49
- Procedural guarantees 47
- Reception conditions 47
- Non-refoulement 46
- Personal circumstances of applicant 44
- Credibility assessment 43
- Internal protection 43
- Membership of a particular social group 42
- Return 42
- Effective access to procedures 41
- Persecution (acts of) 40
- Serious harm 38
- Vulnerable person 38
- Best interest of the child 34
- Individual assessment 34
- Real risk 34
- Standard of proof 32
- Family member 31
- Well-founded fear 31
- Child Specific Considerations 28
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 27
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 27
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 26
- Protection 26
- Unaccompanied minor 26
- Safe third country 25
- Torture 24
- Exclusion from protection 23
- Family reunification 23
- Gender Based Persecution 23
- Burden of proof 22
- Humanitarian considerations 22
- Material reception conditions 22
- Request to take back 22
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 21
- Religion 21
- Accelerated procedure 20
- Discrimination 19
- Indiscriminate violence 19
- Subsequent application 18
- Actors of protection 17
- Inadmissible application 17
- Relevant Facts 17
- Health (right to) 16
- Internal armed conflict 16
- Political Opinion 16
- Previous persecution 16
- Personal interview 15
- Relevant Documentation 15
- Dependant (Dependent person) 14
- Individual threat 14
- First country of asylum 13
- Delay 12
- Obligation to give reasons 12
- Country of origin 11
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 11
- Request that charge be taken 11
- Revocation of protection status 11
- Safe country of origin 11
- Visa 11
- Manifestly unfounded application 10
- Benefit of doubt 9
- Refugee sur place 9
- Sexual orientation 9
- Access to the labour market 8
- Accommodation centre 8
- Crime against humanity 8
- Final decision 8
- Terrorism 8
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 7
- Armed conflict 7
- Duty of applicant 7
- Indirect refoulement 7
- Integration measures 7
- Residence document 7
- Nationality 6
- Serious non-political crime 6
- Stateless person 6
- Trafficking in human beings 6
- Death penalty / Execution 5
- Education (right to) 5
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 5
- Race 5
- Circumstances ceased to exist 4
- Country of former habitual residence 4
- Freedom of movement (right to) 4
- More favourable provisions 3
- Cessation of protection 2
- Female genital mutilation 2
- International armed conflict 2
- War crimes 2
- Withdrawal of protection application 2
- Sponsor 1
- Temporary protection 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 82
- Iran 36
- Russia 30
- Syria 24
- Nigeria 23
- Iraq 22
- Somalia 22
- Russia (Chechnya) 18
- Pakistan 14
- Unknown 14
- Eritrea 11
- Sudan 11
- Albania 8
- Palestinian Territory 8
- Turkey 8
- Ukraine 8
- Kosovo 7
- Sri Lanka 7
- Algeria 6
- Congo (DRC) 6
- Serbia 6
- Angola 4
- Armenia 4
- Cameroon 4
- Georgia 4
- Cuba 3
- Ethiopia 3
- Ghana 3
- Guinea 3
- India 3
- Ivory Coast 3
- Burundi 2
- China 2
- Egypt 2
- Kazakhstan 2
- Lebanon 2
- Libya 2
- Lithuania 2
- Mali 2
- Mongolia 2
- Niger 2
- South Africa 2
- Tanzania 2
- Togo 2
- Tunisia 2
- Uganda 2
- United Kingdom 2
- Vietnam 2
- Austria 1
- Azerbaijan 1
- Bangladesh 1
- Belarus 1
- Brazil 1
- Bulgaria 1
- Burkina Faso 1
- Congo (Republic of) 1
- Croatia 1
- Ecuador 1
- France 1
- Haiti 1
- Jamaica 1
- Jordan 1
- Kuwait 1
- Kyrgyzstan 1
- Mauritania 1
- Morocco 1
- Senegal 1
- Sierra Leone 1
- Slovakia 1
- Uzbekistan 1
- Venezuela 1
- Western Sahara 1
- Zambia 1
- Zimbabwe 1
Filter by country of decision
- United Kingdom 81
- Austria 63
- Germany 50
- France 40
- Czech Republic 23
- Greece 23
- Belgium 19
- Netherlands 19
- Ireland 18
- Poland 18
- Slovenia 16
- Hungary 15
- Spain 14
- Sweden 13
- Finland 12
- Italy 9
- Slovakia 8
- Switzerland 8
- Cyprus 6
- Denmark 5
- Portugal 2
- Luxembourg 1