You are here
Home › Ghana ›EDAL case summaries
Based on the principle of effectiveness, the CJEU ruled that a limit of 15 days to apply for subsidiary protection following a notification of the decision not to grant refugee status is particularly short and cannot be justified by the need to ensure an effective return procedure. The limited period endangers applicants’ ability to submit an application for subsidiary protection.
This case concerned the detention of four applicants from Ghana in Italy. The basis of the claim was a violation of Article 5(1) ECHR.
There is a well-founded fear of persecution based on membership of a particular social group in the case of an applicant who, even though he is not gay, he is perceived as such by his community, his family and the authorities in his country of origin.
The Supreme Court held that an immigrant whose passport or equivalent identity document reveals their minority cannot be subjected to additional tests in order to determine his age unless a proportionality judgment about the document’s reliability has first been carried out. The Court also held that medical techniques to determine an age cannot be applied indiscriminately.
Two things are required for recognition of refugee status: the existence of a ground for persecution (whether actual or threatened) and the breakdown of the social bonds between the country of origin and its citizen to the extent that the State is no longer able to guarantee protection.
This was a decision on appeal against detention under Articles 76(3) et seq of Law 3386/2005 and 30(2) of Law 3907/2011. It concerned an act to halt an asylum application, Non-attendance at the personal interview at the primary examination of the application was deemed to be tacit withdrawal of the application to be granted asylum. The Applicant was arrested due to the absence of legal documentation and decisions to detain and return were issued. Mental illness associated with the return process was considered.
A judicial decision lifted the detention order so as to not...
The right to family reunification involving Union citizens who are minor children living with their mothers, who are third country nationals, in the territory of the Member State of which the children are nationals and changes in the composition of the families following the mothers’ remarriage to third country nationals and the birth of children of those marriages who are also third country nationals. The case involves the right to respect for family life and how to take into consideration the children’s best interests.
When refusing a claim for asylum the decision-maker must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant's fear is not well founded.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- Detention 3
- Effective access to procedures 2
- Persecution (acts of) 2
- Return 2
- Well-founded fear 2
- Actors of protection 1
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 1
- Best interest of the child 1
- Cessation of protection 1
- Country of origin information 1
- Credibility assessment 1
- Delay 1
- Family reunification 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- Internal protection 1
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 1
- Membership of a particular social group 1
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 1
- Procedural guarantees 1
- Protection 1
- Refugee Status 1
- Relevant Documentation 1
- Safe country of origin 1
- Sexual orientation 1
- Standard of proof 1
- Subsequent application 1
- Subsidiary Protection 1
- Unaccompanied minor 1
- Withdrawal of protection application 1
Filter by country of applicant
- (-) Remove Ghana filterGhana
- Algeria 1
- Armenia 1
- Benin 1
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
- India 1
- Macedonia 1
- Madagascar 1
- Mali 1
- Mongolia 1
- Senegal 1
- Tanzania 1
- Turkey 1
Filter by country of decision
- Italy 3
- Czech Republic 1
- France 1
- Greece 1
- Spain 1