EDAL case summaries
The purpose of the child care benefit “500+” envisaged in the Law of 11 February 2016 is to provide assistance to parents and guardians in raising children by covering some expenses related to their needs. Excluding refugees from persons entitled to this benefit because their residence card does not contain a note “access to labour market” would lead to unfair differentiation of the legal situation of the foreigners (dividing them into those who were issued a residence card with the note “access to labour market“ and those issued a residence card without this note) and of the children (...
In order to protect the security of state and public order, it is justifiable to limit freedoms and rights, including the right to court. The right to court covers the possibility to access case files by the party of the proceedings as well as the possibility to get to know the motives of the decision and formulate allegations against them. When there is a need to protect the security of state and public order, the rights of the party of the proceedings are limited. The party cannot get to know the motives of the decisions and has to rely on the fair judgement of the authority.
The...
Arranging for medical or psychological examination is required, for example, when the third country national indicates that they were subject to violence, which left physical or mental signs which can be confirmed by medical or psychological examination. Not all invoked health problems will require an exam. Moreover, in subsequent proceedings this obligation is limited. The authority has no basis to arrange for such an examination when the event indicated in the subsequent application related to violence which was already subject to examination in the first asylum proceedings and was...
Limiting the possibility to access classified information to the third country national does not automatically mean that their right to an effective remedy with regard to a return order was infringed. By the same token there has been no infringement of Article 47 of the Charter.
The request for a preliminary ruling reads as follows: “Should Article 32 (3) of the Visa Code interpreted in light of Recital 29 of the preamble and Article 47 of the Charter be understood as creating an obligation for a Member State to guarantee the right to an effective remedy before a court?”
In the opinion of the Supreme Administrative Court the wording of Article 32 (3) of the Visa Code does not provide clarity as to whether the EU legislator intended to give the term “appeal” the meaning of any measure envisaged in national law or to give the right to an effective remedy...
The Court found that the national legal provision was incompatible with the Returns Directive. Lodging a complaint against the return decision to the court cannot be a reason for prolonging detention under the Directive.
The Supreme Administrative Count in the case concerning housing for a refugee ruled that the applicant, as a refugee, has found herself in a very specific situation, which was not taken into account by the authority. The applicant was not able to submit all the documents and information about the members of the family who stayed in Chechnya in order to obtain housing. It is beyond any doubt that the applicant and her children cannot live with their relatives, because other members of their family are in Chechnya, so the missing information could not have had any influence on the case...
The case shows how the legal amendment which entered into force on 13 November 2015 changed the situation of asylum seekers by deleting the legal basis for detention formulated as “preventing from abusing the asylum proceedings”. Instead, article 87 (1) (3) of the Law on granting protection to foreigners in the territory of the Republic of Poland reflects article 8 (3)(d) of the recast Reception Directive and states that an applicant can be detained in order to issue or enforce the return decision if towards the applicant there is an ongoing return proceedings or there was a return...
The risk of persecutions should be assessed only on the basis of the current state of affairs or a prognosis of the situation in the foreseeable future, based on documented facts and not on general hypothesis regarding potential changes with no probability assessment. There is no doubt that in Ukraine there is a serious crisis, because of armed conflict in the part of the country, but for now there is no real risk that the conflict will cover the whole country.
The applicant is a member of a protestant church, while the dominating religion is orthodox. This circumstance should be...
The Court ruled that when deciding whether the subsequent application is admissible, new facts regarding the individual situation of the applicant or her situation in the country of origin as well as change in the situation of the country of origin alone are significant. When examining whether the grounds of the first and the subsequent application are the same, the essence of the facts is important, not the manner in which they are presented.
With regard to the applicant’s argument that in the present case the legal grounds for granting subsidiary protection were not examined, the...
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
- EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 27
- EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 22
- EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 11
- EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011 10
- EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 4
- EN - Returns Directive, Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008 4
- Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01 3
- EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation) 1
- EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council 1
- EN - Recast Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2013/33/EU of 26 June 2013 1
Filter by keywords
- Membership of a particular social group 10
- Refugee Status 9
- Effective remedy (right to) 8
- Internal protection 8
- Individual assessment 7
- Standard of proof 7
- Subsequent application 7
- Effective access to procedures 6
- Relevant Facts 6
- Well-founded fear 6
- Return 5
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 5
- Subsidiary Protection 5
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 4
- Actors of protection 4
- Country of origin information 4
- Credibility assessment 4
- Family unity (right to) 4
- Internal armed conflict 4
- Procedural guarantees 4
- Real risk 4
- Access to the labour market 3
- Gender Based Persecution 3
- Inadmissible application 3
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 3
- Persecution (acts of) 3
- Refugee sur place 3
- Sexual orientation 3
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 2
- Cessation of protection 2
- Circumstances ceased to exist 2
- Detention 2
- Discrimination 2
- Dublin Transfer 2
- Family member 2
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2
- Material reception conditions 2
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 2
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 2
- Personal circumstances of applicant 2
- Revocation of protection status 2
- Vulnerable person 2
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Benefit of doubt 1
- Best interest of the child 1
- Burden of proof 1
- Country of origin 1
- Dependant (Dependent person) 1
- Duty of applicant 1
- Exclusion from protection 1
- Family reunification 1
- Freedom of movement (right to) 1
- Integration measures 1
- Manifestly unfounded application 1
- Non-refoulement 1
- Political Opinion 1
- Protection 1
- Relevant Documentation 1
- Religion 1
- Request that charge be taken 1
- Trafficking in human beings 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Russia 22
- Ukraine 4
- Afghanistan 2
- Cameroon 2
- Uganda 2
- Georgia 1
- Palestinian Territory 1
- Russia (Chechnya) 1
- Sudan 1
- Unknown 1
Filter by country of decision
- (-) Remove Poland filterPoland