You are here
Home › Exclusion from protection ›EDAL case summaries
Keywords: Exclusion from protection
Member States cannot merely refer to the existence of public order and security concerns under Article 72 TFEU, in order to derogate from their obligations under Title V without proving that it was necessary to do so. Such a derogation cannot be made unilaterally without any control by the European institutions. As the assessment of whether an applicant constitutes a danger to national security or public order should be thorough and individualised, in accordance with previous findings in C‑369/17 (Ahmed), Member States cannot invoke this provision in the context of...
Date: 02-04-2020
Country of Applicant: Congo (DRC), Ivory Coast, Russia, Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: Cessation of protection, Exclusion from protection, Non-refoulement, Refugee Status, Revocation of protection status, Serious non-political crime
The provisions of Article 14(4) to (6) of Directive 2011/95 cannot be interpreted as meaning that the effect of the revocation or the refusal of the refugee status is that the person concerned, who satisfies the material conditions set forth in Article 1A of the Geneva Convention, is excluded from international protection. Member States, when implementing Article 14(4) and (5) of the directive, are required to grant refugees who are present in their respective territories only the rights expressly referred to in Article 14(6) of that directive and the rights set out in the Geneva...
Date: 14-05-2019
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Exclusion from protection, Subsequent application
CJEU rules that Hungarian national law which defines ‘serious crime’ (in the context of exclusion from subsidiary protection) as a crime with a possible custodial of 5 years sentence as incompatible with the Qualification Directive. Instead, each crime must be looked at on an individual basis to ascertain its “seriousness”.
Date: 13-09-2018
Country of Applicant: Palestinian Territory
Keywords: Exclusion from protection, Inadmissible application, Protection
Where a person is registered with UNRWA and then later applies for international protection in a European Union Member State such persons are in principle excluded from refugee status in the European Union unless it becomes evident, on the basis of an individualised assessment of all relevant evidence, that their personal safety is at serious risk and it is impossible for UNRWA to guarantee that the living conditions are compatible with its mission and that due to these circumstances the individual has been forced to leave the UNRWA area of operations.
Date: 25-07-2018
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia
Keywords: Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN, Crime against humanity, Exclusion from protection, Family member, Individual assessment, Integration measures, War crimes
The fact that a person has been the subject, in the past, of a decision excluding him from refugee status cannot automatically permit the finding that the mere presence of that person in the territory of the host Member State constitutes a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. A case-by-case assessment is necessary before a measure based on grounds of public policy or public security is adopted. This assessment includes weighing the threat against the protection of the rights of EU citizens and their...
Date: 02-05-2018
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Exclusion from protection, Personal interview, Procedural guarantees
The Council of State annulled the decision from the French national court on asylum (CNDA) after noting it had not examined the applicant’s submission that he did not have access to an interpreter during his personal interview for a re-examination of his asylum application. He had indeed appealed against the decision of the French immigration authorities (OFPRA) rejecting his claim despite his inability to be understood.
Date: 11-04-2018
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Turkey
Keywords: Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN, Exclusion from protection, Refugee Status, Terrorism
The applicant’s asylum claim has been rejected on the grounds of Article 1F(c) of the 1951 Refugee Convention. The act he committed would amount to being contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN. However, the Council of State hereby decided that in failing to seek and qualify the severity of this act in the light of its effects internationally, the lower court made an error of law.
Date: 11-04-2018
Country of Decision: Belgium
Country of Applicant: Albania
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, Circumstances ceased to exist, Country of origin, Duty of applicant, Exclusion from protection, Gender Based Persecution, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Obligation to give reasons, Personal circumstances of applicant, Previous persecution, Well-founded fear
An asylum applicant who was a victim of previous persecution in their country of origin can be granted refugee status under article 1, C 5) of the Geneva Convention. This is because, due to the severity of the treatment applied, the applicant’s fear is exacerbated to such an extent that, even if the persecution has ceased to exist, a return to the country of origin would be unthinkable.
Date: 17-08-2017
Country of Decision: Belgium
Country of Applicant: Congo (DRC)
Keywords: Exclusion from protection
After having committed several offences qualified as being of a ‘particular gravity’, Mr.O’s refugee status was revoked on April 21st 2006.
Upon appeal to the Council of Alien Law Litigation (‘CALL’), the question of the validity of article 55/3/1 of December 15th 1980 law (the ‘1980 Law’) arose. Although it is established that this provision is transposing article 14(4) of the Directive 2011/95/EU, its compatibility with the Geneva Convention must be verified.
The Council refuses then to pronounce itself on the question, arguing the competency of such matter is vested in the...
Date: 10-02-2017
Country of Decision: Denmark
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Credibility assessment, Crime against humanity, Exclusion from protection, Internal armed conflict, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Political Opinion, Real risk, Refugee Status, Relevant Facts, Serious non-political crime, War crimes
The applicant, who had deserted the Syrian army, was seen in isolation covered by the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1) [refugee status]. However, the Board found serious reasons to assume that the applicant had committed a crime against humanity and war crimes during his military service and consequently he was excluded from protection. Nevertheless, the Danish Aliens Act Art. 31, (2) is an obstacle to his expulsion as he would risk persecution covered by the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1) in the case of returning to Syria.
Date: 06-02-2017
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Exclusion from protection filterExclusion from protection
- Terrorism 25
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 21
- Crime against humanity 21
- Serious non-political crime 21
- Refugee Status 12
- War crimes 11
- Subsidiary Protection 10
- Standard of proof 9
- Individual assessment 8
- Revocation of protection status 8
- Non-refoulement 7
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 7
- Political Opinion 6
- Well-founded fear 6
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 5
- Internal armed conflict 5
- Protection 5
- Stateless person 5
- Torture 5
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 4
- Armed conflict 4
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 4
- Cessation of protection 4
- Burden of proof 3
- Credibility assessment 3
- Effective access to procedures 3
- First country of asylum 3
- Previous persecution 3
- Serious harm 3
- Child Specific Considerations 2
- Circumstances ceased to exist 2
- Country of origin 2
- Effective remedy (right to) 2
- Family member 2
- Genocide 2
- Humanitarian considerations 2
- Manifestly unfounded application 2
- Personal circumstances of applicant 2
- Procedural guarantees 2
- Return 2
- Subsequent application 2
- Access to the labour market 1
- Benefit of doubt 1
- Best interest of the child 1
- Country of former habitual residence 1
- Country of origin information 1
- Death penalty / Execution 1
- Dependant (Dependent person) 1
- Detention 1
- Duty of applicant 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- Gender Based Persecution 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- Indiscriminate violence 1
- Integration measures 1
- Internal protection 1
- International armed conflict 1
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 1
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 1
- Membership of a particular social group 1
- More favourable provisions 1
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 1
- Obligation to give reasons 1
- Persecution (acts of) 1
- Personal interview 1
- Real risk 1
- Refugee sur place 1
- Relevant Documentation 1
- Relevant Facts 1
- Religion 1
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 1
- Safe country of origin 1
- Safe third country 1
- Withdrawal of protection application 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 14
- Turkey 13
- Russia 10
- Palestinian Territory 9
- Iraq 6
- Russia (Chechnya) 6
- Algeria 5
- Lebanon 4
- Rwanda 4
- Congo (DRC) 3
- Morocco 3
- Syria 3
- Iran 2
- Somalia 2
- Sri Lanka 2
- Albania 1
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
- Central African Republic 1
- Colombia 1
- Croatia 1
- Cuba 1
- Egypt 1
- India 1
- Ivory Coast 1
- Jordan 1
- Nigeria 1
- Tunisia 1
- Ukraine 1
- Unknown 1
- Western Sahara 1
- Zimbabwe 1
