EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: Spain
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Accommodation centre, Credibility assessment, Internal armed conflict, Refugee Status, Relevant Documentation, Subsidiary Protection
When addressing asylum claims, refugee status must be recognised when there is a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the reasons foreseen in the 1951 Refugee Convention. Assessment of an asylum request fundamentally needs careful consideration of the facts and personal circumstances of the asylum seeker, as well as an analysis of the nature of the risk. The criteria of this test does not have to be restrictive, it is sufficient that the competent authority has a rational belief that the requirements are met for the purpose of receiving refugee status.
Date: 15-12-2015
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Inadmissible application, Refugee Status, Responsibility for examining application, Subsidiary Protection
The rules of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (“International Protection Directive”) do not prohibit the review of an application for asylum in Germany in a case where an applicant has previously been granted subsidiary protection in another Member State, if such application for asylum has been filed before 20 July 2015. This is because the inadmissibility of applications filed before 20 July 2015 is governed by the Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on...
Date: 23-10-2015
Country of Decision: Slovenia
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Circumstances ceased to exist, Effective remedy (right to), Non-refoulement, Relevant Facts, Subsidiary Protection
Termination of an applicant’s international protection status (ie where there is a change or termination of protection grounds) must be examined against the principle of non-refoulement, which ensures the right to a fair and efficient procedure in which the Asylum authority assesses if non-refoulement would be violated where protection ceases.
It results from the principle of non-refoulement that the applicant in proceedings on termination of subsidiary protection must have the possibility to state all the reasons for which subsidiary protection should not cease.
In the...
Date: 15-10-2015
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Keywords: Country of origin information, Indiscriminate violence, Individual assessment, Individual threat, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Internal armed conflict, Internal protection, Subsidiary Protection
The degree of indiscriminate violence in certain parts of Iraq was such as to expose persons to a real risk of serious harm within the meaning of Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive merely due to their presence there.
However, other areas of the country (including Baghdad City) did not meet this threshold, and as such, Iraqi nationals could be forcibly returned to these areas as it would not generally be unreasonable or unduly harsh for them to internally relocate there.
Date: 30-09-2015
Country of Decision: Greece
Country of Applicant: Burkina Faso
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, Credibility assessment, Humanitarian considerations, Personal interview, Subsidiary Protection, Well-founded fear
Whilst the Appeals Committee believes that the applicant was ‘wronged’ during the administrative procedures in the First and Second Degree (pursuant to Decree 113/2013), the Committee is unable to request a new personal interview, because no such provision exists within the national legislation (Regulation Service of Authority and Appeal 339/2013 opinion of the Legal Council).
Date: 23-09-2015
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Detention, Persecution (acts of), Refugee Status, Return, Subsidiary Protection
Deprivation of liberty as allowed by art. 5.1(f) of the Convention not only has to be with a view to deportation, but it also has to be in compliance with national law, and free from arbitrariness.
The submission of an asylum application does not as such imply that detention is no longer with a view to deportation.
Date: 22-09-2015
Country of Decision: Poland
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Refugee Status, Subsequent application, Subsidiary Protection
The Court ruled that when deciding whether the subsequent application is admissible, new facts regarding the individual situation of the applicant or her situation in the country of origin as well as change in the situation of the country of origin alone are significant. When examining whether the grounds of the first and the subsequent application are the same, the essence of the facts is important, not the manner in which they are presented.
With regard to the applicant’s argument that in the present case the legal grounds for granting subsidiary protection were not examined, the...
Date: 07-09-2015
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Assessment of facts and circumstances, Country of origin information, Credibility assessment, Individual assessment, Internal protection, Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Membership of a particular social group, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Previous persecution, Real risk, Refugee Status, Subsidiary Protection, Well-founded fear
If an appellant provides substantiated reasons that call into question the consideration of evidence in the administrative proceedings, the facts cannot be regarded as “well established on basis of the records in combination with the complaint”. Thus, an oral hearing has to be held. The same applies if there is a necessity to consider up-to-date country of origin information as well as an up-to-date medical report due to the long duration of the judicial proceedings.
In the opinion of the court, the absence of a legal representative in the oral hearing, in spite of an explicit...
Date: 24-08-2015
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Detention, Effective remedy (right to), Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Procedural guarantees, Subsidiary Protection
In this case, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) analysed:
1) whether the conditions that the applicant faced when he was detained in Latvia violated Article 5(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR); and
2) whether the appellate proceedings violated Article 5(4) of the ECHR.
Although the ECtHR held that the conditions in Latvia’s detention centre complied with Article 5(1) and that the appellate courts provided an effective review of the applicant’s detention under Article 5(4), the ECtHR nevertheless found that the appellate proceedings...
Date: 21-07-2015
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Exclusion from protection, Subsidiary Protection, Withdrawal of protection application
The Court expressed doubts as to whether it is constitutionally permissible to base the withdrawal of subsidiary protection on a “final conviction of a crime” without taking the circumstances of the individual case into account. The Austrian provision might not be in line with the requirements as set out by the European Union Directive 2004/83/EC and might therefore be unconstitutional.
Date: 03-07-2015
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Subsidiary Protection filterSubsidiary Protection
- Refugee Status 7
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 3
- Credibility assessment 3
- Detention 3
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 3
- Well-founded fear 3
- Country of origin information 2
- Dublin Transfer 2
- Effective remedy (right to) 2
- Individual assessment 2
- Internal armed conflict 2
- Internal protection 2
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 2
- Non-refoulement 2
- Persecution (acts of) 2
- Procedural guarantees 2
- Accommodation centre 1
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 1
- Burden of proof 1
- Circumstances ceased to exist 1
- Country of former habitual residence 1
- Effective access to procedures 1
- Exclusion from protection 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Humanitarian considerations 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- Indiscriminate violence 1
- Individual threat 1
- Material reception conditions 1
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 1
- Membership of a particular social group 1
- Nationality 1
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 1
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 1
- Personal circumstances of applicant 1
- Personal interview 1
- Political Opinion 1
- Previous persecution 1
- Protection 1
- Race 1
- Real risk 1
- Reception conditions 1
- Relevant Documentation 1
- Relevant Facts 1
- Residence document 1
- Responsibility for examining application 1
- Return 1
- Safe third country 1
- Serious harm 1
- Stateless person 1
- Subsequent application 1
- Torture 1
- Vulnerable person 1
- Withdrawal of protection application 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 3
- Somalia 3
- Syria 3
- Burkina Faso 1
- Egypt 1
- Palestinian Territory 1
- Russia 1
- Turkey 1
