You are here
Home › Personal interview ›EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: Ireland
Country of Applicant: Pakistan
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Delay, Individual assessment, Personal interview, Procedural guarantees
This case concerns the use of s. 13(6) findings under the Refugee Act as amended and the issues surrounding depriving an applicant of an oral hearing on the basis of their delay in claiming asylum. The Court rules that the Minister has discretion to apply s.13(6) but it must be proportionate and reasonable.
Date: 26-11-2014
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Manifestly unfounded application, Personal interview, Subsequent application
The provisions of the Asylum Procedures Directive have been fully transposed into the CESEDA. A decision of the OFPRA based on all the documents/ evidence submitted by the applicant in support of his subsequent application without an interview does not infringe Article 41(2) of the Charter. When OFPRA considered the subsequent application, it was legitimate for it to have rejected the application without any interview since the new documents/ evidence provided were without merits. The Court found that M.A’s application must be rejected without any need to re-examine the facts he submitted...
Date: 11-04-2014
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Detention, Dublin Transfer, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Family reunification, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Material reception conditions, Personal interview, Refugee Status, Return
The Court examined the complaints of a Somali national concerning her detention conditions in Malta (Article 3), which deteriorated her mental health and resulted in inhuman and degrading treatment. She further alleged that her detention was in breach of Article 5 § 1, 2 and 4 (Right to liberty and security).
Date: 09-12-2013
Country of Decision: Finland
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Family member, Family reunification, Family unity (right to), Personal interview
The Immigration Service had rejected applications for residence permits based on family ties, because the Applicants had not been heard in person. Conducting an oral hearing with the Applicants was not mandatory for establishing the requirements for family reunification. The refusal by the Immigration Service to conduct the hearing had in practice lead to the rejection of the applications for residence permits. The Administrative Court considered that the conduct of the authorities had caused undue harm to the Applicants.
Date: 24-06-2013
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Vietnam
Keywords: Effective remedy (right to), Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Personal interview, Procedural guarantees, Return
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is also applicable to proceedings to issue a return decision and requires a hearing. With regard to an Applicant who is not represented by anyone legally qualified, such an obligation also exists in cases in which an application for an oral hearing was not expressly lodged. This applies in particular when considering questions concerning private and family life in Austria.
Date: 19-03-2013
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Uzbekistan
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Credibility assessment, Obligation to give reasons, Personal interview, Procedural guarantees
There has been a violation of Article 47 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union if there is a failure to hold a hearing at the Asylum Court, notwithstanding that the facts of the case are not sufficiently clear. Merely general statements without reference to the case in point do not represent sufficient grounds for the lack of credibility of the submission.
Date: 13-03-2013
Country of Decision: Slovakia
Country of Applicant: Algeria
Keywords: Humanitarian considerations, Manifestly unfounded application, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Obligation/Duty to cooperate, Personal interview
Date: 12-02-2013
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Angola
Keywords: Detention, Dublin Transfer, Effective remedy (right to), Personal interview, Reception conditions
Failure to integrate into the country, which is typically the case, does not constitute grounds for protection. Behaviour a long time previously in relation to the entry is not significant when assessing security requirements. Aggressive behaviour in the Federal Support Centre does not alone represent a need for security which justifies detention (deportation detention). Despite removal from the Federal Support Centre owing to this behaviour, this must not lead to an asylum seeker losing his entitlement to basic services.
Date: 24-01-2013
Country of Decision: Ireland
Country of Applicant: Rwanda
Keywords: Credibility assessment, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Personal interview, Subsidiary Protection
This case concerned the appropriate interpretation to be given to the determination of the Court of Justice in Case C-277/2012, M.M. v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in answer to the questions posed by the High Court of Ireland pursuant to Article 267 TFEU.
The Court of Justice answered in the negative the question posed that the duty to cooperate required the decision maker to supply the Applicant with a draft of any possible adverse decision for comment prior to its formal adoption.
However, the Court of Justice also considered the Irish system for protection...
Date: 23-01-2013
Country of Decision: Ireland
Country of Applicant: South Africa
Keywords: Accommodation centre, Actor of persecution or serious harm, Country of origin information, Credibility assessment, Effective remedy (right to), Gender Based Persecution, Internal protection, Membership of a particular social group, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Personal interview, Previous persecution, Procedural guarantees, Refugee Status, Safe country of origin, Subsidiary Protection, Well-founded fear
The Court granted permission to the Applicants to seek judicial review of the negative decision made in a written appeal (rather than an oral appeal) in an application for refugee status made by a South African one-parent family. The decision to allow a written appeal was based on the status of South Africa as a ‘safe country,’ and the appeal decision was based on personal credibility and the absence of a nexus to Convention grounds. The Applicants failed in their argument that the absence of an oral hearing may render the appeal decision unlawful by reference to the right to an effective...
Date: 18-12-2012
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Personal interview filterPersonal interview
- Procedural guarantees 26
- Effective remedy (right to) 18
- Effective access to procedures 15
- Credibility assessment 13
- Refugee Status 9
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 8
- Dublin Transfer 8
- Country of origin information 7
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 7
- Subsidiary Protection 6
- Burden of proof 5
- Detention 5
- Individual assessment 5
- Personal circumstances of applicant 5
- Relevant Documentation 5
- Relevant Facts 5
- Well-founded fear 5
- Gender Based Persecution 4
- Manifestly unfounded application 4
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 4
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 4
- Political Opinion 4
- Accelerated procedure 3
- Internal protection 3
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 3
- Membership of a particular social group 3
- Request to take back 3
- Return 3
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 3
- Subsequent application 3
- Vulnerable person 3
- Benefit of doubt 2
- Child Specific Considerations 2
- Country of origin 2
- Delay 2
- Duty of applicant 2
- Family member 2
- Family reunification 2
- Humanitarian considerations 2
- Material reception conditions 2
- Obligation to give reasons 2
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 2
- Real risk 2
- Religion 2
- Safe country of origin 2
- Safe third country 2
- Serious harm 2
- Torture 2
- Unaccompanied minor 2
- Accommodation centre 1
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 1
- Best interest of the child 1
- Discrimination 1
- Exclusion from protection 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- Non-refoulement 1
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 1
- Persecution (acts of) 1
- Previous persecution 1
- Reception conditions 1
- Refugee sur place 1
- Residence document 1
- Responsibility for examining application 1
- Sexual orientation 1
- Standard of proof 1
- Trafficking in human beings 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 5
- Iran 5
- Russia 4
- Bangladesh 3
- Pakistan 3
- Somalia 3
- Iraq 2
- Nigeria 2
- Rwanda 2
- South Africa 2
- Algeria 1
- Angola 1
- Armenia 1
- Brazil 1
- Burkina Faso 1
- China 1
- Comoros 1
- Congo (DRC) 1
- Eritrea 1
- Ethiopia 1
- France 1
- Kosovo 1
- Mali 1
- Moldova 1
- Morocco 1
- Sudan 1
- Tanzania 1
- Ukraine 1
- Unknown 1
- Uzbekistan 1
- Vietnam 1
Filter by country of decision
- France 10
- Austria 9
- Ireland 6
- Greece 4
- Hungary 4
- Germany 3
- Finland 2
- Slovakia 2
- Slovenia 2
- Czech Republic 1
- Italy 1
- Sweden 1
- Switzerland 1
- United Kingdom 1
