EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Iran
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Access to the labour market, Detention, Dublin Transfer, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Final decision, Health (right to), Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Non-refoulement, Obligation to give reasons, Procedural guarantees, Request to take back, Return, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Safe third country, Standard of proof, Subsequent application
The case concerns three unconnected Iranian nationals who unsuccessfully claimed asylum in the Republic of Cyprus then came to the UK where they made asylum claims. A further right to appeal remained with the Cypriot Supreme Court. The case is a challenge by the applicants to the SSHD’s refusal to decide their asylum claims substantively; certification of their asylum claims on safe third country grounds; and certification of their human rights claims as clearly unfounded.
The Court concluded that there was no real risk that the...
Date: 01-03-2016
Country of Decision: Belgium
Country of Applicant: Egypt
Keywords: Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Subsequent application
The CALL held that a psychological report, submitted in the context of a subsequent application, which indicated that the applicant’s condition seriously affected his intellectual capacity, could be considered as a “new element” within the meaning of Art 51/8 of the Belgian Aliens Law (please see comments section below), as it implied that the application should be dealt with according to a special procedure (§§ 208-211, UNHCR handbook).
Date: 13-05-2011
Country of Decision: Greece
Country of Applicant: Unknown
Keywords: Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Refugee Status, Relevant Documentation, Subsequent application, Torture
The petition for an ab initio examination of the asylum application was rejected by the General Secretary of the Ministry of Public Order (decision being appealed in this case) because the evidence submitted was not deemed to be new and crucial. That ruling in the contested decision was flawed because the General Secretary did not have the authority to decide whether the Applicant had refugee status deeming the evidence submitted (a medical report which linked clinical findings to torture) to not be crucial for granting asylum. Instead, he should have ordered an ab initio...
Date: 05-05-2009
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports filterMedical Reports/Medico-legal Reports
- (-) Remove Subsequent application filterSubsequent application
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Access to the labour market 1
- Detention 1
- Dublin Transfer 1
- Effective access to procedures 1
- Effective remedy (right to) 1
- Final decision 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 1
- Non-refoulement 1
- Obligation to give reasons 1
- Procedural guarantees 1
- Refugee Status 1
- Relevant Documentation 1
- Request to take back 1
- Return 1
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 1
- Safe third country 1
- Standard of proof 1
- Torture 1
Filter by country of decision
- Belgium 1
- Greece 1
- United Kingdom 1
