You are here
Home › Individual assessment ›EDAL case summaries
The Spanish authorities failed to properly consider all the relevant criteria, before initiating proceedings to expel two Moroccan nationals, who were awaiting their long-term residence permits, due to their criminal convictions. The proportionality of the measure was not adequately assessed and the applicants’ social and cultural ties with both Spain and Morocco were not taken into account.
CJEU rules on the correct processing of applications for international protection lodged separately by family members and the interrelationship between them.
The applicant appealed the Migration Court’s decision to dismiss his application for asylum on grounds of the availability of an internal protection alternative in the applicants home country of Afghanistan.
The Migration Court of Appeal granted the appeal as it was held that the question of internal protection can only be assessed after the court has made an individual assessment of the original grounds for protection invoked by the applicant.
Requests for family reunification must be examined even if the third-country national, who is a family member of an EU citizen who has never exercised his right of freedom of movement, is subject to an entry ban. Whether there is a relationship of dependency between the third-country national and the EU citizen and whether public policy grounds justify the entry ban must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
The fact that a person has been the subject, in the past, of a decision excluding him from refugee status cannot automatically permit the finding that the mere presence of that person in the territory of the host Member State constitutes a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. A case-by-case assessment is necessary before a measure based on grounds of public policy or public security is adopted. This assessment includes weighing the threat against the protection of the rights of EU citizens and their...
In cases of deportation to a third country, the competent authority is required to assess, on a case-by-case basis, if the third country offers effective legal protection against deportation to the state of origin.
In the case of a Turkish journalist of Kurdish origin, the competent authority had only insufficiently assessed if the applicant enjoys sufficient legal protection in Brazil against refoulment to Turkey. It therefore violated her right to be heard.
The applicant, a national from Sierra Leone who claimed asylum in Switzerland on the grounds of persecution owing to his homosexuality, is found not to be at risk of treatment prohibited under Article 3 of the Convention in case of return to his country of origin. In substance, the Court recalls that national authorities are in the best position to carry out this risk assessment and recalls the UNHCR Guiding Principles on asylum claims based on sexual orientation, which require the evaluation of the risk through individual assessment, in addition to the examination of the country’s...
Where an individual is detained with a view to his removal and an Article 3 violation is alleged if the applicant is returned, it is for the Court to rule on the plea and thus assess the lawfulness of the decision to detain.
In the light of the ECtHR jurisprudence on Article 3 ECHR and country of origin information on Sudan the Belgian authorities had to rigorously verify if the applicant would risk being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR before issuing the order to leave the territory, which includes giving the applicant an effective opportunity to be heard. This...
A waiver to file an appeal against custody prior to deportation is only possible under strict conditions. Particularly there has to be a qualified legal representation when signing the waiver.
The risk of absconding in the sense of Art. 76a Residence Act cannot be assumed because of the mere fact that another state is responsible for the asylum procedure of that person.
The application of S.C. and her minor children Z.C. and F.C. related to the cassation of an Appeal Court judgement regarding compensation for the harm they suffered as a result of an indisputably unjust decision to place the Applicants in a Guarded Detention Centre for Foreigners. The Supreme Court reversed the challenged judgement and passed the case to the Appeal Court for re-consideration.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Individual assessment filterIndividual assessment
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 38
- Personal circumstances of applicant 27
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 21
- Refugee Status 21
- Subsidiary Protection 20
- Country of origin information 18
- Procedural guarantees 17
- Credibility assessment 15
- Real risk 14
- Internal protection 13
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 13
- Standard of proof 12
- Burden of proof 11
- Child Specific Considerations 11
- Dublin Transfer 11
- Effective remedy (right to) 11
- Membership of a particular social group 11
- Return 11
- Detention 10
- Obligation to give reasons 10
- Effective access to procedures 9
- Protection 9
- Reception conditions 9
- Well-founded fear 9
- Exclusion from protection 8
- Individual threat 8
- Persecution (acts of) 8
- Best interest of the child 7
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 7
- Political Opinion 7
- Previous persecution 7
- Indiscriminate violence 6
- Manifestly unfounded application 6
- Race 6
- Relevant Facts 6
- Accelerated procedure 5
- Country of origin 5
- Family member 5
- Family unity (right to) 5
- Material reception conditions 5
- Non-refoulement 5
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 5
- Personal interview 5
- Relevant Documentation 5
- Religion 5
- Responsibility for examining application 5
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 5
- Serious harm 5
- Subsequent application 5
- Health (right to) 4
- Humanitarian considerations 4
- Internal armed conflict 4
- Refugee sur place 4
- Serious non-political crime 4
- Terrorism 4
- Torture 4
- Unaccompanied minor 4
- Vulnerable person 4
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 3
- Crime against humanity 3
- Discrimination 3
- Duty of applicant 3
- Residence document 3
- Safe country of origin 3
- Safe third country 3
- Sexual orientation 3
- Access to the labour market 2
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 2
- Benefit of doubt 2
- Country of former habitual residence 2
- Delay 2
- Dependant (Dependent person) 2
- Family reunification 2
- Final decision 2
- First country of asylum 2
- Inadmissible application 2
- Integration measures 2
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 2
- Nationality 2
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 2
- Request to take back 2
- Revocation of protection status 2
- Accommodation centre 1
- Cessation of protection 1
- Circumstances ceased to exist 1
- Request that charge be taken 1
- Stateless person 1
- Temporary protection 1
- Trafficking in human beings 1
- Visa 1
- War crimes 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 15
- Russia 10
- Congo (DRC) 5
- Nigeria 5
- Syria 5
- Turkey 5
- Ethiopia 4
- Iran 4
- Sudan 4
- Armenia 3
- Azerbaijan 3
- Iraq 3
- Pakistan 3
- Somalia 3
- Ukraine 3
- Unknown 3
- China 2
- Croatia 2
- Eritrea 2
- Russia (Chechnya) 2
- Rwanda 2
- Tunisia 2
- Albania 1
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
- Cameroon 1
- China (Tibet) 1
- Colombia 1
- Egypt 1
- Gabon 1
- Gambia 1
- Georgia 1
- Guinea 1
- Kenya 1
- Kosovo 1
- Mali 1
- Morocco 1
- Niger 1
- Palestinian Territory 1
- Sierra Leone 1
- Slovakia 1
- Sri Lanka 1
- Uganda 1