EDAL case summaries
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Effective remedy (right to), Final decision, Refugee Status
In order to guarantee that an applicant for international protection has an effective judicial remedy within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter, a national court or tribunal is required to vary a decision of the first-instance determining body that does not comply with its previous judgment. The court or tribunal must substitute its own decision on the application for international protection by disapplying, if necessary, the national law that prohibits it from proceeding in that way.
Date: 29-07-2019
Country of Applicant: Iran
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, Country of origin information, Final decision, Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Membership of a particular social group, Non-refoulement, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Personal circumstances of applicant, Political Opinion, Protection, Refugee Status, Refugee sur place, Religion, Return
An Article 3 compliant assessment requires a full and ex nunc evaluation of a claim. Where the State is made aware of facts that could expose an applicant to an individual risk of ill-treatment, regardless of whether the applicant chooses to rely on such facts, it is obliged to assess this risk ex proprio motu.
Date: 23-03-2016
Country of Decision: Italy
Country of Applicant: Liberia
Keywords: Final decision, Persecution (acts of), Refugee Status, Sexual orientation
When assessing an asylum application, a judge shall consider as relevant both the applicant’s homosexuality as well as the fact that homosexuality is considered a crime in the country of origin of the applicant. Moreover, the judge shall base its reasoning not only on the assessment of credibility of the applicant, but also on the actual situation in the country of origin, which has to be verified through its own power of investigation.
Date: 05-03-2015
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Country of origin, Credibility assessment, Final decision, Individual threat, Non-refoulement, Persecution (acts of), Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Personal circumstances of applicant, Protection, Real risk, Refugee Status, Return, Subsidiary Protection, Well-founded fear
An application for international protection lodged by an Afghan who illegally entered Austria was rejected. The Court found that the applicant had no well-founded fear of persecution in his country of origin nor was he to be granted the subsidiary protection status.
Date: 29-11-2013
Country of Applicant: Kazakhstan
Keywords: Country of origin, Country of origin information, Effective remedy (right to), Final decision, Manifestly unfounded application, Nationality, Non-refoulement, Persecution (acts of), Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Political Opinion, Previous persecution, Protection, Refugee Status, Torture, Well-founded fear
A potential violation of Art. 3 of the Convention can be found when a person risks to be extradited to a country where practice of ill-treatment of detainees are reported by reliable sources, notwithstanding possible assurances by the involved public prosecutors of that country.
Given the irreversible and particular serious nature of the harm which might occur if risks relevant under art. 3 of the Convention materialise, an effective remedy to avoid such a harm within the meaning of art. 13 of the Convention requires both an independent and rigorous scrutiny of a claim...
Date: 18-05-2010
Country of Applicant: India, United Kingdom
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Detention, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Final decision, Procedural guarantees, Real risk, Refugee Status, Return, Torture
This case involved the UK’s attempted deportation of an Indian citizen and leader of the Sikh separatist movement who lived in the UK and was allegedly a national security threat. Because of the risk of ill-treatment, the Court found the UK would breach Art. 3 if he were deported to India, in conjunction with a violation of Art. 13. Because he was not able to review the lawfulness of his prolonged detention, the Court also found a violation of Art. 5 (4).
Date: 15-11-1996
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Final decision filterFinal decision
- (-) Remove Refugee Status filterRefugee Status
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 3
- Effective remedy (right to) 3
- Non-refoulement 3
- Persecution (acts of) 3
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 3
- Protection 3
- Return 3
- Country of origin 2
- Country of origin information 2
- Personal circumstances of applicant 2
- Political Opinion 2
- Real risk 2
- Torture 2
- Well-founded fear 2
- Burden of proof 1
- Credibility assessment 1
- Detention 1
- Effective access to procedures 1
- Individual assessment 1
- Individual threat 1
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 1
- Manifestly unfounded application 1
- Membership of a particular social group 1
- Nationality 1
- Previous persecution 1
- Procedural guarantees 1
- Refugee sur place 1
- Religion 1
- Sexual orientation 1
- Subsidiary Protection 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 1
- India 1
- Iran 1
- Kazakhstan 1
- Liberia 1
- Russia 1
- United Kingdom 1
