EDAL case summaries
Country of Applicant: Senegal
Keywords: Country of origin, Credibility assessment, Manifestly unfounded application, Sexual orientation, Well-founded fear
The ECtHR declared inadmissible the complaints brought by a Senegalese national who had unsuccessfully applied for asylum in Spain due to his fear of being persecuted in his country of origin on the grounds of his sexual orientation. The complaints were considered premature since the Audiencia Nacional had annulled the administrative decision rejecting his asylum application and the asylum procedure had started afresh.
Date: 26-09-2017
Country of Decision: Greece
Country of Applicant: Palestinian Territory, Syria
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Cessation of protection, Country of former habitual residence, Country of origin, Country of origin information, Dependant (Dependent person), Exclusion from protection, First country of asylum, Individual assessment, Manifestly unfounded application, Protection, Refugee Status, Return, Safe country of origin, Well-founded fear
The appellant sought to have the decision of the Secretary General of the Ministry of Public Order annulled, under which her previous application for her and her son to be recognised as refugees had been rejected. The Hellenic Council of State rejected the current appeal, due to the fact that the appellant had invoked financial reasons for leaving Syria and as such, had no legal basis to be recognised as a refugee.
Date: 16-12-2014
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
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Country of origin filterCountry of origin
- (-) Remove Manifestly unfounded application filterManifestly unfounded application
- (-) Remove Well-founded fear filterWell-founded fear
- Country of origin information 2
- Protection 2
- Refugee Status 2
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 1
- Cessation of protection 1
- Country of former habitual residence 1
- Credibility assessment 1
- Dependant (Dependent person) 1
- Effective remedy (right to) 1
- Exclusion from protection 1
- Final decision 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Individual assessment 1
- Nationality 1
- Non-refoulement 1
- Persecution (acts of) 1
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 1
- Political Opinion 1
- Previous persecution 1
- Return 1
- Safe country of origin 1
- Sexual orientation 1
- Torture 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Kazakhstan 1
- Palestinian Territory 1
- Senegal 1
- Syria 1
Filter by country of decision
- Greece 1
