You are here
Home › Relevant Facts ›EDAL case summaries
Country of Applicant: Algeria, Morocco
Keywords: Cessation of protection, Circumstances ceased to exist, Country of origin, Personal circumstances of applicant, Protection, Relevant Facts, Revocation of protection status, Stateless person, Subsidiary Protection, Well-founded fear
Member States are required to revoke subsidiary protection on the basis of art. 19(1), if they find out that the conditions that led to the granting of status were never met, regardless of whether the incorrect assessment of facts leading to the status is imputable exclusively to the national authority itself
Date: 23-05-2019
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Country of origin information, Internal protection, Personal circumstances of applicant, Personal interview, Relevant Facts, Safe country of origin
The applicants’ personal circumstances and the general conditions in the country of origin have to be taken into account, when assessing whether an internal flight alternative exists. Relevant sources like the UNHCR guidelines have to be used. Otherwise this constitutes a significant procedural error.
Date: 13-12-2018
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Iraq
Keywords: Dependant (Dependent person), Family reunification, Relevant Documentation, Relevant Facts, Visa
A birth certificate is not a decision within the meaning of paragraph 108 FamFG. As a child grows older the need of beeing looked after by both its parents decreases. There is no necessity for interim order in the case of family reunification, when the child is about to come of age, as the right to subsequent immigration is not lost upon the child’s coming of age according to the CJEU.
Date: 04-09-2018
Country of Applicant: France, Morocco
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Country of origin information, Detention, Effective access to procedures, Real risk, Relevant Documentation, Relevant Facts, Return, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Safe country of origin, Terrorism
After being notified of his return decision, set to take place on the same day, the applicant requested an interim measure on Article 3 ECHR grounds in the morning but was nonetheless expelled to Morocco in the afternoon. The Court found no violation of Article 3, regarding the applicant’s expulsion to Morocco, by taking into account subsequent information. It found a violation of Article 34 of the Convention, owing to the fact that the applicant had no sufficient time to file a request to the Court, hence running the risk back then of being potentially subjected to treatment prohibited...
Date: 19-07-2018
Country of Decision: Denmark
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Country of origin information, Internal armed conflict, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Refugee Status, Relevant Facts, Subsidiary Protection
The complainant, an Ethnic Maktumin Stateless Kurd from Amuda, Al-Hasakah, Syria, was granted temporary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (3).
On 31 August 2017 the complainant lodged a complaint claiming refugee status under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1) or alternatively subsidiary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (2).
The Board found that the complainant fulfilled the conditions for subsidiary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (2) as he would risk participating in acts of war during the compulsory military service.
Date: 25-05-2018
Country of Decision: Denmark
Country of Applicant: Uganda
Keywords: Discrimination, Membership of a particular social group, Refugee Status, Relevant Facts, Sexual orientation, Well-founded fear
The applicant, an ethnic Samia and Christian Protestant from Mukono, Uganda, became aware of his sexual orientation when he was between 7 and 9 years old and has had several both short and longer relations with men.
The Refugee Appeals Board accepted the applicants account which included imprisonment and physical and sexual abuse as well as harassment by village locals. Consequently, the Board found that the applicant was at risk of persecution by his family and locals against which no protection by the authorities could be obtained. Therefore, the applicant was granted refugee...
Date: 17-05-2018
Country of Decision: Denmark
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Burden of proof, Duty of applicant, Relevant Documentation, Relevant Facts, Subsidiary Protection
The complainant is a Sunni Muslim from Mogadishu, Somalia. In July 2015 the Danish Immigration Service decided that his subsidiary protection status under the Danish Aliens Act. Art. 7 (2) had lapsed according to the Danish Aliens Act Art. 17 (1) and (4). The Refugee Appeals Board did not consider that the Danish Immigrations Service had lifted its burden of proof according to the Danish Aliens Act Art 17 (4). Consequently, the Board granted the complainant continued subsidiary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (2).
Date: 01-12-2017
Country of Decision: Denmark
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Country of origin information, Credibility assessment, Relevant Facts, Revocation of protection status, Subsidiary Protection
The complainant is an ethnic Galadi and a Muslim from Afgoye, Somalia. On 6 April 2017, the Danish Immigration Service decided not to prolong the complainant’s subsidiary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 11 (2), cf. Art. 19 (1) no. 1 and Art. 19 (7) cf. Art. 26 (1).
After an overall assessment of the country of origin information the Board found that a deportation of the complainant to Afgoye no longer constitutes a violation of Denmark’s international obligations including ECHR article 3. However, regarding the assessment under the Aliens Act article 26, the Board found...
Date: 01-12-2017
Country of Decision: Hungary
Country of Applicant: Egypt
Keywords: Child Specific Considerations, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Persecution (acts of), Protection, Real risk, Refugee Status, Relevant Facts, Religion, Well-founded fear
The Immigration and Asylum Office unlawfully rejected the claimant’s application for international protection. The court found that the authorities did not objectively assess the evidence and country information provided by the claimant, a Coptic Christian from Egypt. They also failed to correctly interpret the definition of a refugee in accordance with international law and disregarded the special status of the claimant who was an underage applicant.
Date: 22-09-2017
Country of Decision: Denmark
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Internal protection, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Refugee Status, Relevant Facts, Religion
The applicant, an ethnic Turkman and an atheist from Aache, Afghanistan had received death threats from local residents close to the imam as well as from his own father because of his apostasy.
The Refugee Appeals Board found that the applicant because of his apostacy would be at risk of being persecuted by local residents, Afghan authorities and the Taleban. Consequently, the applicant was granted refugee status under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1).
Date: 13-06-2017
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Relevant Facts filterRelevant Facts
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 22
- Relevant Documentation 20
- Country of origin information 15
- Refugee Status 15
- Credibility assessment 14
- Well-founded fear 14
- Real risk 13
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 12
- Subsidiary Protection 12
- Personal circumstances of applicant 11
- Internal protection 9
- Political Opinion 8
- Burden of proof 7
- Detention 7
- Membership of a particular social group 7
- Procedural guarantees 7
- Standard of proof 7
- Child Specific Considerations 6
- Effective access to procedures 6
- Effective remedy (right to) 6
- Individual assessment 6
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 6
- Persecution (acts of) 6
- Personal interview 6
- Country of origin 5
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 5
- Religion 5
- Subsequent application 5
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 4
- Circumstances ceased to exist 4
- Discrimination 4
- Duty of applicant 4
- Family member 4
- First country of asylum 4
- Internal armed conflict 4
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 4
- Accelerated procedure 3
- Best interest of the child 3
- Crime against humanity 3
- Humanitarian considerations 3
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 3
- Nationality 3
- Non-refoulement 3
- Protection 3
- Return 3
- Sexual orientation 3
- War crimes 3
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 2
- Benefit of doubt 2
- Delay 2
- Dependant (Dependent person) 2
- Dublin Transfer 2
- Family reunification 2
- Family unity (right to) 2
- Gender Based Persecution 2
- Inadmissible application 2
- Individual threat 2
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 2
- Obligation to give reasons 2
- Previous persecution 2
- Reception conditions 2
- Responsibility for examining application 2
- Revocation of protection status 2
- Safe country of origin 2
- Safe third country 2
- Serious harm 2
- Serious non-political crime 2
- Torture 2
- Unaccompanied minor 2
- Actors of protection 1
- Armed conflict 1
- Cessation of protection 1
- Education (right to) 1
- Exclusion from protection 1
- Final decision 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Indirect refoulement 1
- Indiscriminate violence 1
- International armed conflict 1
- Manifestly unfounded application 1
- Material reception conditions 1
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 1
- Race 1
- Request to take back 1
- Stateless person 1
- Temporary protection 1
- Terrorism 1
- Visa 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
Filter by country of decision
- Denmark 13
- Poland 7
- France 5
- Germany 5
- Hungary 4
- Ireland 4
- United Kingdom 4
- Austria 3
- Czech Republic 2
- Netherlands 2
- Slovenia 2
- Belgium 1
- Greece 1
- Spain 1
- Switzerland 1
