EDAL case summaries
Effective access to justice relies on an individual having a voice in the proceedings concerning him or her. Solely focusing on the credibility of the appellant’s account and not having regard to objective evidence testifying to the appellant’s vulnerability or the risk to the appellant of return to Afghanistan has led to the proceedings being neither fair nor just. A material error of law has therefore been committed.
Following the appeal of the Children’s Rights Ombudsman, the Supreme Administrative Court set aside the order of the Regional Administrative Court, in relation to a challenge to the decision of the Polish Refugee Board, and set aside the aforementioned decision to refuse tolerated stay, dismissing the appeal in all other respects.
The court justified its decision with reference to the procedural errors of the Polish Refugee Board, which included failing to gather evidence in an appropriate manner and inappropriately establishing the facts relating to the Applicant’s children....
The Court rejected the Applicant's challenges to the respondent's decision to certify his asylum claim and deport him, on the grounds (i) of his mistaken assessment of his probable situation if deported to Italy, (ii) of his misreading of the Dublin III Regulation, specifically insofar as it applies to effective remedy.
The application of S.C. and her minor children Z.C. and F.C. related to the cassation of an Appeal Court judgement regarding compensation for the harm they suffered as a result of an indisputably unjust decision to place the Applicants in a Guarded Detention Centre for Foreigners. The Supreme Court reversed the challenged judgement and passed the case to the Appeal Court for re-consideration.
Even where there are no substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the Member State responsible, a Dublin transfer can only be carried out in conditions which exclude the possibility that that transfer might result in a real and proven risk of the person concerned suffering inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 CFR EU.
If there is a real and proven risk that the state of health of an applicant who suffers from a serious mental or physical illness would significantly and permanently deteriorate,...
In some cases of severe illness Art. 3 ECHR precludes a deportation even though a treatment in the state of origin is possible. If the appellant cannot bear the costs of the treatment or the necessary concomitant medication the renewed increase of the illness and therefore a real life-threatening risk is probable which precludes the deportation of the applicant.
Article 3 ECHR is triggered in cases involving the removal of a seriously ill individual where the absence of appropriate treatment in the receiving country or the lack of access to such treatment, exposes the individual to a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in his or her state of health resulting in intense suffering or to a significant reduction in life expectancy.
Access to sufficient and appropriate medical care must be available in reality, not merely in theory and the impact of removal on an applicant must be assessed by considering how an applicant’s condition would...
The Court of Appeal concluded that to send a refugee who has a residence permit in Italy and an asylum seeker back to the country would not violate Article 3 ECHR.
The court further constrained the decision in Tarakhel to families with minor children.
This case dealt with the issue of whether the Secretary of State’s certification of the asylum claims of the two independent applicants as “clearly unfounded” was flawed on public law grounds, and the important difference between a decision on refugee status itself and a decision on a claim being “clearly unfounded”.
Pages
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
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 14
- Refugee Status 11
- Real risk 10
- Credibility assessment 9
- Country of origin information 8
- Torture 8
- Dublin Transfer 7
- Well-founded fear 7
- Personal circumstances of applicant 6
- Vulnerable person 6
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 5
- Detention 5
- Effective remedy (right to) 5
- Individual assessment 5
- Political Opinion 5
- Procedural guarantees 5
- Reception conditions 5
- Burden of proof 4
- Child Specific Considerations 4
- Country of origin 4
- Health (right to) 4
- Internal protection 4
- Membership of a particular social group 4
- Non-refoulement 4
- Relevant Documentation 4
- Return 4
- Standard of proof 4
- Subsidiary Protection 4
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 3
- Effective access to procedures 3
- Manifestly unfounded application 3
- Personal interview 3
- Protection 3
- Request to take back 3
- Serious harm 3
- Accelerated procedure 2
- Benefit of doubt 2
- Best interest of the child 2
- Individual threat 2
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 2
- Nationality 2
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 2
- Persecution (acts of) 2
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 2
- Previous persecution 2
- Race 2
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 2
- Safe country of origin 2
- Access to the labour market 1
- Accommodation centre 1
- Duty of applicant 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- Final decision 1
- Gender Based Persecution 1
- Humanitarian considerations 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- Material reception conditions 1
- Obligation to give reasons 1
- Relevant Facts 1
- Request that charge be taken 1
- Responsibility for examining application 1
- Safe third country 1
- Subsequent application 1
- Visa 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Iran 3
- Somalia 3
- Sri Lanka 3
- Afghanistan 2
- Georgia 2
- Russia 2
- Russia (Chechnya) 2
- Sudan 2
- Syria 2
- Turkey 2
- Albania 1
- Angola 1
- Egypt 1
- Kyrgyzstan 1
- Libya 1
- Morocco 1
- Pakistan 1
- Palestinian Territory 1
- Tanzania 1
- Uzbekistan 1
Filter by country of decision
- United Kingdom 5
- Austria 3
- Hungary 2
- Poland 2
- Sweden 2
- Belgium 1
- France 1
- Greece 1
- Slovakia 1
- Switzerland 1