EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: Czech Republic
Country of Applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Inadmissible application, Assessment of facts and circumstances, Non-refoulement, Subsequent application
If a subsequent application for international protection is submitted, the administrative authority must evaluate whether the applicant has presented any new facts that, through no fault of the applicant, had not been the subject of examination in the previous proceeding. Otherwise, the application is inadmissible and the proceedings must be stopped.
Date: 06-03-2012
Country of Decision: Czech Republic
Country of Applicant: Unknown
Keywords: Inadmissible application, Non-refoulement, Personal circumstances of applicant, Relevant Facts, Subsequent application
The case concerned a subsequent application for international protection based on the right to a family and private life (Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) The application was rejected as inadmissible by the Ministry of Interior (MOI) on the basis that Art 8 considerations were deemed not applicable in asylum cases. However, the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) made two important findings. Firstly it held that even if an application was considered to be inadmissible, there was an obligation to evaluate the risk of refoulement under Art 33 of 1951 Refugee...
Date: 17-09-2010
Country of Decision: Czech Republic
Country of Applicant: Algeria
Keywords: Subsidiary Protection, Serious harm, Inadmissible application, Non-refoulement, Subsequent application
Even if the conditions for considering a subsequent application as inadmissible are fulfilled, the Ministry of Interior is still obliged to consider whether the applicant is in danger of serious harm upon return to his or her country of origin.
Date: 23-06-2010
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
Filter by country of decision
- (-) Remove Czech Republic filterCzech Republic
