EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Sierra Leone
Keywords: Burden of proof, Dublin Transfer, Responsibility for examining application
The extension of the transfer period in accordance with Art. 29 para. 2 sentence 2 Dublin Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 (Dublin III Regulation) requires that the asylum applicant absconds, which has to be proven by the transferring authority.
Absconding is only the case, if the asylum applicant cannot be reached by the competent authorities for an (undefined) longer period of time. The intention to evade the authorities does not have to be proven. The circumstances of the individual case are decisive.
Date: 09-01-2019
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Libya
Keywords: Burden of proof, Dublin Transfer, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect)
Where the transfer does not take place within the six months’ time limit, the Member State responsible shall be relieved of its obligations to take charge or to take back the person concerned and responsibility shall then be transferred to the requesting Member State Art. 29 (2) of the Dublin III Regulation.
Date: 05-10-2015
Country of Decision: Germany
Keywords: Benefit of doubt, Burden of proof, Dublin Transfer, Effective remedy (right to), First country of asylum, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Reception conditions, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Safe third country
An Applicant’s interest in remaining in a Member State pending a final decision on his asylum status prevails over the public’s interest in immediate enforcement of an ordered transfer if the appropriate asylum procedure of an Applicant in the country to which the Applicant would be deported cannot be ensured (Hungary).
Date: 02-10-2015
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Unknown
Keywords: Benefit of doubt, Burden of proof, Delay, Dublin Transfer, First country of asylum, Health (right to), Humanitarian considerations, Individual assessment, Personal circumstances of applicant, Relevant Facts, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Safe third country, Standard of proof, Temporary protection
The interest of an applicant to obtain a temporary stay from deportation to Italy for the time being predominates, if the applicant, in case of his return back to Italy, would be threatened with serious damage to his health due to inadequate accommodation opportunities there and because medical care would not be guaranteed due to a permanent overstretch of resources.
Date: 16-12-2013
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Burden of proof, Standard of proof
The shifting of the burden of proof according to Article 4 (4) of the Qualification Directive applies if the Applicant refers to previous acts of persecution or threats as an indicator of the well-foundedness of his fear that persecution would resume if he were to return to his home country.
If it is assumed that the individual concerned was under immediate threat of persecution associated with his ethnicity when he left his home country, then the link is not simply with the ethnicity of the individual concerned (Chechen in this case), but also with the enmity generally expressed by...
Date: 25-06-2012
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Ivory Coast
Keywords: Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Membership of a particular social group, Burden of proof, Previous persecution, Standard of proof
Refugee protection was not granted, since the applicant, as a member of the particular social group of "Djoula living in the South of Côte d’Ivoire" (Art 10.1(d) Qualification Directive) was not subject to political persecution when he left Côte d’Ivoire in 2001. The court found that group persecution was not established due to the insufficient frequency of acts of persecution against members of this group and therefore in case of return, the applicant would not face such group persecution.
Date: 22-04-2010
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Iraq
Keywords: Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Religion, Membership of a particular social group, Burden of proof, Internal protection, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Persecution (acts of)
This case concerned the assessment of "group" persecution against Arab Sunnites in Iraq. In order to establish the existence of group persecution it is necessary to at least approximately determine the number of acts of persecution and to link them to the entire group of persons affected by that persecution ( "density of persecution"). Acts of persecution not related to the characteristics relevant to asylum (reasons for persecution) are not to be included.
Date: 21-04-2009
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Burden of proof, Previous persecution, Standard of proof, Protection
There are "good reasons" within the meaning of Art 4.4 of the Qualification Directive to consider that the persecution of ethnic Chechens from Chechnya which was solely based on membership of the group will not be repeated. The standard of Art 4.4 of the Qualification Directive has now replaced the concept of "sufficient safety from persecution" as developed in German case law for refugees who had been subject to persecution before they left their country of origin.
Date: 31-07-2008
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Russia, Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, Individual assessment, Internal protection, Previous persecution, Persecution (acts of), Personal circumstances of applicant, Standard of proof
Members of a family, who are Russian citizens of Chechen ethnicity, who originate from Chechnya, can avail of internal protection (in the context of persecution by non-state actors, Section 60 (1) sentence (4) (c) of the Residence Act in conjunction with Art 8 of the Qualification Directive) in areas outside Chechnya, if one family member (in this instance the wife) possesses a new Russian internal passport, which is an important requirement for registration.
Date: 25-10-2006
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Burden of proof filterBurden of proof
- Standard of proof 5
- Dublin Transfer 4
- Previous persecution 3
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 3
- Benefit of doubt 2
- First country of asylum 2
- Individual assessment 2
- Internal protection 2
- Membership of a particular social group 2
- Persecution (acts of) 2
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 2
- Personal circumstances of applicant 2
- Responsibility for examining application 2
- Safe third country 2
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 1
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 1
- Delay 1
- Effective remedy (right to) 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Humanitarian considerations 1
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 1
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 1
- Protection 1
- Reception conditions 1
- Relevant Facts 1
- Religion 1
- Request to take back 1
- Temporary protection 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Russia 3
- Iraq 1
- Ivory Coast 1
- Libya 1
- Russia (Chechnya) 1
- Sierra Leone 1
- Unknown 1
Filter by country of decision
- (-) Remove Germany filterGermany
