EDAL case summaries
In the case of an individual benefiting from subsidiary protection according to the Qualification Directive, the non-fulfilment of the passport obligation cannot be taken into account in the exercising of discretion for the assessment of authorisation for access to employment.
1. The issue as to whether an asylum-seeker was already protected against political persecution in a third country is only relevant in terms of the asylum application for recognition of refugee status in the context of the concept of the first country of asylum as defined in EU law in Article 29 of the Asylum Procedures Act (Articles 25 and 26 of the Asylum Procedures Directive).
2. If the Federal Office has reached a decision on the asylum application in this case, the substantive question of the subsidiarity of refugee protection in the assessment of refugee status is...
A recognised refugee may only be refused a residence document if there are serious grounds to consider that he is a danger to the security of the Federal Republic of Germany.
The question as to whether a refugee should be refused a residence document because he supports a terrorist organisation can only be determined following a comprehensive, specific verification of the activities of the organisation and the foreign national based on an overall evaluation by the trial judge (following the decision of 15 March 2005 – Federal Administrative Court 1 C 26.03 - Federal Administrative...
Germany - Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Administrative Court), 16 May 2012, 11 S 2328/11
1. The expulsion of a recognised refugee may only take place subject to the requirements of Article 21 (3) in conjunction with (2) and Article 24 (1) of the Qualification Directive.
2. Compelling grounds for public security or order according to Article 24 (1) of the Qualification Directive do not presuppose any outstanding acts of extraordinary danger in support of international terrorism; neither does specific involvement of a sympathiser suffice unless it is characterised by a large degree of continuity and as such shapes and influences the environment of the terrorist...
Exclusion from refugee protection on the grounds of "serious non-political crime" or of "acts against the purposes and principles of the United Nations", cannot solely be based on the fact that an applicant has been a supporter or a member of an organisation which has been classified as terrorist. There must be serious reasons to justify the assumption that the applicant was personally involved in the commission of such crimes.
The standards of proof for the assessment of possible future persecution are identical for both the refugee status determination procedure and for the revocation procedure (change of legal opinion, following Federal Administrative Court, decisions of 1 June 2011,10 B 10.10 and 10 C 25.10). The question of whether a change of circumstances in a country of origin is of such a significant and non-temporary nature that the refugee’s fear of persecution can no longer be regarded as well-founded can only be answered after an individual assessment.
This case concerned the revocation of asylum and refugee status in the case of a former official of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) (following the European Court of Justice case of Federal Republic of Germany v B (C-57/09) and D (C-101/09), 09 November 2010).
Following the decision of Abdulla et al. (C-175/08) of the European Court of Justice, revocation of refugee status presupposes that a significant and non-temporary change of circumstances has taken place. This is the case if the factors which formed the basis of the recognition of refugee status, may be regarded as having been permanently eradicated. The relevant standard of probability for the determination of the likelihood of future persecution is the same both for the recognition and the revocation of refugee status, i.e. a change in circumstances has to be assessed on the basis of...
The exclusion ground “serious non-political crime” does not automatically apply to a supporter of the PKK. In contrast, an examination of the individual responsibility has to be carried out in each case.
The facilitated standard of proof under Art. 4.4 of the Qualification Directive may be applied to the examination of subsidiary protection. Under German law, subsidiary protection is not excluded on the ground that the applicant is a “danger to the community”.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- Exclusion from protection 9
- Terrorism 9
- Serious non-political crime 6
- Standard of proof 6
- Revocation of protection status 5
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 4
- Individual assessment 4
- Non-refoulement 3
- Refugee Status 3
- Subsidiary Protection 3
- Torture 3
- Circumstances ceased to exist 2
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2
- Previous persecution 2
- Protection 2
- Safe third country 2
- Well-founded fear 2
- Access to the labour market 1
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 1
- Cessation of protection 1
- Crime against humanity 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Humanitarian considerations 1
- Internal protection 1
- Manifestly unfounded application 1
- Real risk 1
- Refugee sur place 1
- Residence document 1
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 1
- Serious harm 1
- Subsequent application 1
- War crimes 1
Filter by country of applicant
- (-) Remove Turkey filterTurkey
- Azerbaijan 1
Filter by country of decision
- (-) Remove Germany filterGermany