EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Exclusion from protection, Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict, Revocation of protection status, Serious non-political crime, Subsidiary Protection
As a result of six convictions owing to trivial offences against property, subsidiary protection was withdrawn from the Applicant, as he would represent a danger to the general public. The Constitutional Court revoked this decision as unconstitutional: the Asylum Court had not interpreted the corresponding national stipulation in accordance with the Directives as the crimes committed were not of the seriousness required in Art 17 Qualification Directive.
Date: 13-12-2011
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Iraq
Keywords: Subsidiary Protection, Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict, Procedural guarantees
The Court quashed a country guidance decision on the application of Art 15(c) of the Qualification Directive in Iraq because the Tribunal had not considered what was necessary to ensure that it heard proper argument in a case designed to give binding guidance for other applicants.
Date: 13-12-2011
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Armed conflict, Country of origin, Indiscriminate violence, Individual threat, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Non-refoulement, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Return, Serious harm, Subsidiary Protection
The case concerned a complaint by two Somali nationals that they risked being ill-treated or killed if returned to Mogadishu from the UK.
Date: 28-11-2011
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Armed conflict, Burden of proof, Credibility assessment, Indiscriminate violence, Individual threat, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Internal armed conflict, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Religion, Serious harm, Subsidiary Protection
In this case the Tribunal considered the general country situation in Somalia as at the date of decision for five applicants, both men and women from Mogadishu, south or central Somalia, Somaliland and Puntland. The risk of female genital mutilation (FGM) was also considered.
Date: 28-11-2011
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Iraq
Keywords: Subsidiary Protection, Real risk, Serious harm, Individual threat, Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict, Assessment of facts and circumstances, Circumstances ceased to exist, Revocation of protection status
When establishing the necessary “density of danger” in an internal armed conflict within the meaning of Section 60 (7) (2) Residence Act/Art. 15 (c) Qualification Directive, it is not sufficient to quantitatively determine the number of victims in the conflict. It is necessary to carry out an “evaluating overview” of the situation, which takes into account the situation of the health system. However, this issue was not decisive in the present case, as the applicant would only face a low risk of being seriously harmed.
Date: 17-11-2011
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Sri Lanka
Keywords: Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Political Opinion, Subsidiary Protection, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Individual threat, Indiscriminate violence
Since the situation of generalised violence which prevailed in Sri Lanka ended with the military defeat of LTTE combatants in May 2009, the only valid ground for claiming subsidiary protection would be Article L.712-1 b) Ceseda [which transposes Article 15 (b) of the Qualification Directive]. The applicant has to establish an individual risk of persecution or ill-treatment in case of return to his/her country of origin.
Date: 18-10-2011
Country of Decision: Netherlands
Country of Applicant: Zimbabwe
Keywords: Indiscriminate violence, Credibility assessment
The fact that riots took place in poorer neighbourhoods which resulted in sudden police charges to dispel the riots is insufficient for the application of Art 15(c) of the Qualification Directive.
Date: 08-09-2011
Country of Decision: Sweden
Country of Applicant: Kenya, Somalia
Keywords: Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict, Serious harm, Subsidiary Protection
If an applicant has serious criticism of a language test conducted to determine their country of origin, the Migration Board must investigate the grounds before making a decision, or at least respond to the applicant's criticism so that the submission can be completed.
If the Migration Court considers a language test report to be unreliable or inadequate, it can decide to request a new language analysis or return the case to the Migration Board for further investigation, but cannot choose to ignore the analysis entirely.
Date: 07-09-2011
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Political Opinion, Subsidiary Protection, Serious harm, Individual threat, Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict, Internal protection, Personal circumstances of applicant, Subsequent application
The applicant was eligible for subsidiary protection as an internal armed conflict is taking place in Logar. The applicant, in case of return to Afghanistan, could not relocate to Kabul, since he could not secure his livelihood there. In order to secure his livelihood, he could not rely on property which his family had possessed in the province of Logar.
Date: 25-08-2011
Country of Decision: Spain
Country of Applicant: Ivory Coast
Keywords: Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Race, Religion, Subsidiary Protection, Serious harm, Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict, Safe third country
The applicant claimed asylum in November 2009 alleging a well founded fear of persecution for reasons of race and religion. The application was refused by the Ministry of Interior on the grounds that the application did not amount to persecution in accordance with the 1951 Refugee Convention. On appeal, the High National Court re-examined the application and held that the conflict which had arisen in the Ivory Coast had to be taken into account and on that basis subsidiary protection should be granted.
Date: 08-07-2011
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Indiscriminate violence filterIndiscriminate violence
- Subsidiary Protection 13
- Internal armed conflict 10
- Serious harm 9
- Individual threat 8
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 4
- Armed conflict 3
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 3
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 2
- Credibility assessment 2
- Internal protection 2
- Non-refoulement 2
- Political Opinion 2
- Real risk 2
- Religion 2
- Revocation of protection status 2
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 1
- Burden of proof 1
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Circumstances ceased to exist 1
- Country of origin 1
- Country of origin information 1
- Exclusion from protection 1
- Individual assessment 1
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 1
- Personal circumstances of applicant 1
- Procedural guarantees 1
- Race 1
- Return 1
- Safe third country 1
- Serious non-political crime 1
- Subsequent application 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Somalia 4
- Afghanistan 3
- Iraq 3
- Ivory Coast 1
- Kenya 1
- Russia 1
- Sri Lanka 1
- Zimbabwe 1
Filter by country of decision
- Germany 4
- France 2
- United Kingdom 2
- Austria 1
- Hungary 1
- Netherlands 1
- Spain 1
- Sweden 1
