EDAL case summaries

The procedure applied by the Hungarian authorities in considering Serbia a ‘Safe Third Country’ was not appropriate to provide the necessary protection against a real risk of inhuman and degrading treatment. The schematic reference to the Hungarian Government’s list of safe third countries and disregard of country reports by reputable international organisations imposed an unfair and excessive burden of proof on the applicants, breaching the effective procedural guarantees provided for in Article 3 and subjecting them to inhuman or degrading treatment due to a possible “chain-...

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...

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. 

This case concerns Art. 23 of Directive 2005/85/EC and the possibility of prioritising the processing of asylum applications by persons belonging to a certain category defined on the basis of nationality or country of origin. The case also deals with the right to an effective judicial remedy under Art. 39 of Directive 2005/85/EC and the concept of ‘court or Tribunal’ within the meaning of that article.