EDAL case summaries
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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).
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