You are here
Home › 2016 ›EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Georgia
Keywords: Country of origin information, Health (right to), Individual assessment, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Personal circumstances of applicant, Subsidiary Protection, Vulnerable person
In some cases of severe illness Art. 3 ECHR precludes a deportation even though a treatment in the state of origin is possible. If the appellant cannot bear the costs of the treatment or the necessary concomitant medication the renewed increase of the illness and therefore a real life-threatening risk is probable which precludes the deportation of the applicant.
Date: 30-12-2016
Country of Decision: France
Keywords: Material reception conditions, Reception conditions
In this application, the associations ask the Council of State to annul, for abuse of power, the decree n°2015-1329 of 21 October 2015 on the allowance granted to asylum seekers.
This decree is here annulled by the Council of State because its article 2 doesn’t provide for a sufficient additional amount for adult asylum seekers to allow them to seek private housing when they weren’t provided with an accommodation but had accepted material reception conditions.
Date: 23-12-2016
Country of Decision: Netherlands
Country of Applicant: Eritrea
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Dublin Transfer, Unaccompanied minor
Switzerland is not the responsible Member State pursuant to Articles 6 and 8 of the Dublin III Regulation, since the unaccompanied minor lives in a foster family in the Netherlands and the Dutch authorities should take into consideration the factors of Article 6 (3) Dublin III Regulation, including the views of the minor. According to the court, Nidos (the guardianship institution for unaccompanied minors in the Netherlands) is an expert institution and its advice should be followed in assessing the best interest of the child.
Date: 23-12-2016
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Eritrea
Keywords: Delay, Dublin Transfer, Effective remedy (right to), Request that charge be taken, Responsibility for examining application, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect)
Request to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling in the following issues:
1. Transfer of responsibility to the requesting member state under the Dublin Regulations due to procedural delay
2. Interlinked to this question is whether the plaintiff has a right to request a change of Member State’s responsibility.
3. Additional questions concern compliance with the Dublin Regulations and its correct implementation, primarily ...
Date: 22-12-2016
Country of Decision: Luxembourg
Country of Applicant: Georgia
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Request to take back
On the basis of CJEU jurisprudence, the administrative tribunal found that all asylum applicants have a right to appeal the manner in which the responsibility criteria of Dublin III has been applied to their individual case and the determination of a responsible Member State where there are systemic deficiencies.
Date: 21-12-2016
Country of Decision: Ireland
Country of Applicant: Serbia
Keywords: Country of origin information, Discrimination, Education (right to), Humanitarian considerations, Persecution (acts of), Race, Relevant Facts
In this case, the Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal against a High Court Judgment in which the Refugee Appeals Tribunal was found to have erred in law in its approach to determining persecution. The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal on the basis that the tribunal member’s finding of no risk of persecution was not unreasonable (within the applicable standards of judicial review) and that the High Court was incorrect in finding that the extent of educational discrimination at issue in this case met the threshold of persecution required.
Date: 21-12-2016
Country of Decision: Poland
Country of Applicant: Pakistan
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Visa
The Supreme Court granted the cassation complaint lodged by the Polish Ombudsman in the case of a persecuted journalist forced to leave the country together with her son and accused of deception in order to obtain attestation of false information (in a form of a visa issued by a Consul). The Supreme Court agreed that there was a reasonable doubt with regard to the circumstances of the case and the guilt of the defendant. In the view of the Court, even if the defendant acted in a way which could be defined as deception in order to obtain attestation of false information, the circumstances...
Date: 16-12-2016
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Unknown
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Request that charge be taken, Request to take back
The following question is referred to the CJEU under the expedited procedure provided for in Article 105 of the Rules of Procedure:
Does Article 26 of the Dublin Regulation III prevent the competent authorities in a Member State, who have requested another Member State to take responsibility under a take back or take charge request of an applicant who has applied for international protection (which has not yet been ruled definitely upon) or any other person caught by Article 18(1)(c) or (d), from taking a transfer decision and notifying the applicant before the requested State has...
Date: 16-12-2016
Country of Applicant: Tunisia
Keywords: Detention, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Procedural guarantees
The applicants’ detention under Article 5 (1) was arbitrary and did not ensure the principle of legal certainty; lack of information was contrary to Article 5 (2) and impaired their ability to challenge the detention decisions in violation of 5 (4). The conditions at the reception centre and the boats did not amount to a violation of Article 3, as the applicants’ stay was very short and there were not sufficient indications.
There was no violation of...
Date: 15-12-2016
Country of Applicant: Tunisia
Keywords: Detention, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Procedural guarantees
The Court found that three nationals of Tunisia had been unlawfully detained upon arrival in Italy, first in a reception centre and then on board ships, where they were not provided information and had no opportunity to challenge their detention. In addition, the conditions in the reception centre amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.
Finally, the Court found that the applicants had been subject to collective expulsion, as despite being identified individually and being issued with separate repatriation decrees, their individual...
Date: 15-12-2016
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- Detention 44
- Dublin Transfer 43
- Effective access to procedures 40
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 32
- Effective remedy (right to) 30
- Procedural guarantees 24
- Refugee Status 21
- Return 20
- Reception conditions 18
- Individual assessment 17
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 17
- Personal circumstances of applicant 15
- Responsibility for examining application 15
- Vulnerable person 15
- Request to take back 14
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 13
- Credibility assessment 13
- Material reception conditions 13
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 13
- Best interest of the child 12
- Country of origin information 12
- Subsidiary Protection 12
- Family unity (right to) 11
- Inadmissible application 11
- Non-refoulement 11
- Family reunification 10
- Relevant Facts 10
- Subsequent application 10
- Child Specific Considerations 9
- Safe third country 9
- Unaccompanied minor 9
- Burden of proof 8
- Family member 8
- Real risk 8
- Relevant Documentation 8
- Sexual orientation 8
- Health (right to) 7
- Membership of a particular social group 7
- Persecution (acts of) 7
- Political Opinion 7
- Protection 7
- Internal protection 6
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 6
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 6
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 6
- Personal interview 6
- Request that charge be taken 6
- Access to the labour market 5
- Discrimination 5
- Final decision 5
- Standard of proof 5
- Well-founded fear 5
- Accelerated procedure 4
- Dependant (Dependent person) 4
- Freedom of movement (right to) 4
- Humanitarian considerations 4
- Obligation to give reasons 4
- Torture 4
- Country of origin 3
- Delay 3
- Duty of applicant 3
- Individual threat 3
- Manifestly unfounded application 3
- Religion 3
- Residence document 3
- Visa 3
- Education (right to) 2
- Female genital mutilation 2
- Gender Based Persecution 2
- Indirect refoulement 2
- Previous persecution 2
- Race 2
- Refugee sur place 2
- Trafficking in human beings 2
- Accommodation centre 1
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 1
- Armed conflict 1
- Benefit of doubt 1
- Exclusion from protection 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Integration measures 1
- Nationality 1
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 1
- Revocation of protection status 1
- Safe country of origin 1
- Sponsor 1
- Stateless person 1
- Temporary protection 1
- Withdrawal of protection application 1
Filter by date
- (-) Remove 2016 filter2016
- September 2016 13
- October 2016 13
- November 2016 7
- May 2016 14
- March 2016 17
- June 2016 22
- July 2016 15
- January 2016 12
- February 2016 11
- December 2016 16
- August 2016 13
- April 2016 11
Filter by country of applicant
- Iran 21
- Syria 16
- Unknown 12
- Afghanistan 10
- Nigeria 9
- Iraq 7
- Eritrea 6
- Russia 6
- Somalia 6
- Pakistan 5
- Sudan 5
- Cameroon 4
- Ghana 4
- Albania 3
- Gambia 3
- Georgia 3
- Kosovo 3
- Algeria 2
- Congo (DRC) 2
- Egypt 2
- Kyrgyzstan 2
- Serbia 2
- Sri Lanka 2
- Tunisia 2
- Turkey 2
- Ukraine 2
- Uzbekistan 2
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
- Burundi 1
- Chad 1
- China 1
- Comoros 1
- Cuba 1
- Guinea 1
- Ivory Coast 1
- Mali 1
- Palestinian Territory 1
- Russia (Chechnya) 1
- Rwanda 1
- Togo 1
Filter by country of decision
- France 17
- Germany 17
- United Kingdom 15
- Netherlands 14
- Hungary 11
- Poland 11
- Austria 6
- Belgium 6
- Slovenia 6
- Ireland 5
- Cyprus 4
- Italy 4
- Spain 4
- Sweden 4
- Switzerland 4
- Greece 2
- Luxembourg 1
- Portugal 1
