EDAL case summaries
Considering the general situation in the country and the circumstances specific to the Applicant, the ECtHR held that there were no serious and current grounds to believe that she would be at real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 upon her return to Nigeria.
An application for international protection lodged by an Afghan who illegally entered Austria was rejected. The Court found that the applicant had no well-founded fear of persecution in his country of origin nor was he to be granted the subsidiary protection status.
A Gambian asylum seeker’s account of approximately eight years’ imprisonment and torture there was not considered credible. The Immigration Service and the Helsinki Supreme Administrative Courtconsidered the application to be manifestly unfounded and the Supreme Administrative Court did not give leave to appeal on the matter. The UN Committee against Torture had, however, requested that the Applicant not be returned to his home country, The Gambia, until UNCAT had examined the complaint.
The case concerns the examination of an asylum claim by the Austrian authorities and assessment of a real risk that the applicant would be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR if expelled to Russia.
This case concerned the assessment and reason given that the Applicant had not been subjected to “serious harm” in the past, in circumstances where the decision was unclear as to whether the finding was to the effect that his account was not believed, or whether, if believed, the harm was not inflicted by persons who were "actors of serious harm". The Court also considered the definition of “actors of serious harm.” Thirdly, the Court considered whether the decision-maker ignored the specific claim made in the application that returned asylum seekers face a risk of detention,...
The detention of asylum applicants may undermine their ability to claim asylum and that an ‘effective remedy’ requires an appeal with suspensive effect against refoulement in order to prevent irreparable harm, sufficient time to prepare the appeal and effective legal assistance and interpretation.
In an application for judicial review, the High Court found that the Minister had not erred in relying on the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT) finding as to credibility in a case where the Applicant’s claimed conversion from Islam to Christianity was found to have been in bad faith and solely in order to ground his applications for international protection. As the ‘conversion’ was not genuine, the Court held that there was no reason to believe it would come to the notice of the Afghani authorities should the Applicant be returned. This rendered it unnecessary to subsequently consider...
Expulsion by France of two nationals of Belarus whose asylum claims had been rejected would amount to a violation of Article 3.
The case concerned an appeal against a refusal to grant refugee status on the grounds that the applicant lacked credibility as the country of origin information (COI) submitted by the applicant was not verified by the national documentation service providing COI.
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Credibility assessment filterCredibility assessment
- (-) Remove Non-refoulement filterNon-refoulement
- Country of origin information 4
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 4
- Political Opinion 3
- Real risk 3
- Refugee Status 3
- Subsidiary Protection 3
- Burden of proof 2
- Country of origin 2
- Effective remedy (right to) 2
- Individual assessment 2
- Individual threat 2
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 2
- Persecution (acts of) 2
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 2
- Procedural guarantees 2
- Protection 2
- Refugee sur place 2
- Return 2
- Serious harm 2
- Torture 2
- Well-founded fear 2
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 1
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 1
- Benefit of doubt 1
- Effective access to procedures 1
- Final decision 1
- Humanitarian considerations 1
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 1
- Manifestly unfounded application 1
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 1
- Membership of a particular social group 1
- Personal circumstances of applicant 1
- Personal interview 1
- Previous persecution 1
- Relevant Facts 1
- Religion 1
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 1
- Subsequent application 1
- Trafficking in human beings 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 2
- Sudan 2
- Belarus 1
- Congo (DRC) 1
- Gambia 1
- Nigeria 1
- Russia (Chechnya) 1