EDAL case summaries
A Syrian asylum-seeker successfully challenges a negative asylum decision before the Swiss Federal Administrative Court because of violations of his right to be heard.
In cases of reasonable suspicion that a person applying for asylum was a victim of human trafficking, the Swiss State Secretary for Migration is obliged to clarify the facts thoroughly on its own initiative.
The Federal Administrative Court rules, that the significant risk of absconding for ‘Dublin-detention’ orders must always be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The sole existence of a ground for detention as set out in Art. 76a(2) AuG does not automatically indicate a significant risk absconding. Such an order is unlawful and must be rescinded. The Court ‘warns’ the SEM that the current practices are very concerning and require adaptation.
The appeal procedure dealt with the question of whether the complainant is to be classified as a minor according to Article 2 lit. g of the Dublin III Regulation, with the consequence that Article 8 para. 1 of the Dublin III Regulation is applicable and the complainant can therefore remain with her sister in Switzerland. In particular the term “legally present” and the procedure of taking evidence were discussed in depth.
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- Credibility assessment 3
- Detention 2
- Personal circumstances of applicant 2
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 1
- Best interest of the child 1
- Burden of proof 1
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Country of origin information 1
- Dublin Transfer 1
- Family member 1
- Gender Based Persecution 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 1
- Obligation to give reasons 1
- Personal interview 1
- Political Opinion 1
- Procedural guarantees 1
- Refugee Status 1
- Relevant Facts 1
- Trafficking in human beings 1
- Unaccompanied minor 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of decision
- (-) Remove Switzerland filterSwitzerland