EDAL case summaries
The appellant claimed that the Tribunals in their determinations had failed to give adequate reasons for their conclusions, in particular that the appellant had not demonstrated well-founded fear. The Court considered the grounds for this claim and found that since we should ‘avoid a requirement of perfection’ (para 26) they were not sufficient to establish that the tribunals had erred, nor that the claimant was at risk of persecution.
The ECtHR declared inadmissible the complaints brought by a Senegalese national who had unsuccessfully applied for asylum in Spain due to his fear of being persecuted in his country of origin on the grounds of his sexual orientation. The complaints were considered premature since the Audiencia Nacional had annulled the administrative decision rejecting his asylum application and the asylum procedure had started afresh.
Effective access to justice relies on an individual having a voice in the proceedings concerning him or her. Solely focusing on the credibility of the appellant’s account and not having regard to objective evidence testifying to the appellant’s vulnerability or the risk to the appellant of return to Afghanistan has led to the proceedings being neither fair nor just. A material error of law has therefore been committed.
The applicant, an ethnic Kurd and a Yarsan from Kanehar, Kermanshah, Iran, had performed religious activities aimed at spreading the knowledge of the faith and thereby attracted the attention of the authorities.
The majority of the Board accepted the applicants account and consequently the Board found that the applicant risked persecution because of his Yarsan religious activities and granted refugee status under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1).
This case dealt with the issue of whether the Secretary of State’s certification of the asylum claims of the two independent applicants as “clearly unfounded” was flawed on public law grounds, and the important difference between a decision on refugee status itself and a decision on a claim being “clearly unfounded”.
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 Court found a violation of Article 3 in relation to a subsequent application for asylum, which had been rejected on the basis that it contained no new elements indicating that the Applicants ran a real risk of being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment on deportation to Russia. Because new information had in fact been provided, the national authorities were under an obligation to thoroughly review the information in order to assure themselves that the Applicants’ rights under Article 3 would be safeguarded.
Whilst the Appeals Committee believes that the applicant was ‘wronged’ during the administrative procedures in the First and Second Degree (pursuant to Decree 113/2013), the Committee is unable to request a new personal interview, because no such provision exists within the national legislation (Regulation Service of Authority and Appeal 339/2013 opinion of the Legal Council).
If an appellant provides substantiated reasons that call into question the consideration of evidence in the administrative proceedings, the facts cannot be regarded as “well established on basis of the records in combination with the complaint”. Thus, an oral hearing has to be held. The same applies if there is a necessity to consider up-to-date country of origin information as well as an up-to-date medical report due to the long duration of the judicial proceedings.
In the opinion of the court, the absence of a legal representative in the oral hearing, in spite of an explicit...
This judicial review case quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision on the basis that the Tribunal member incorrectly made credibility findings regarding the applicant’s claim without a fully reasoned consideration of the country of origin information and a flawed reliance on inconsistencies in an Iranian Court document.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Credibility assessment filterCredibility assessment
- (-) Remove Well-founded fear filterWell-founded fear
- Real risk 13
- Membership of a particular social group 12
- Refugee Status 12
- Country of origin information 10
- Internal protection 10
- Persecution (acts of) 9
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 9
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 8
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 7
- Religion 7
- Subsidiary Protection 7
- Individual threat 6
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 6
- Protection 6
- Relevant Documentation 6
- Standard of proof 6
- Benefit of doubt 5
- Country of origin 5
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 5
- Obligation to give reasons 5
- Serious harm 5
- Sexual orientation 5
- Duty of applicant 4
- Discrimination 3
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 3
- Previous persecution 3
- Relevant Facts 3
- Safe country of origin 3
- Torture 3
- Burden of proof 2
- Child Specific Considerations 2
- Death penalty / Execution 2
- Effective access to procedures 2
- Effective remedy (right to) 2
- Gender Based Persecution 2
- Humanitarian considerations 2
- Manifestly unfounded application 2
- Non-refoulement 2
- Personal circumstances of applicant 2
- Personal interview 2
- Political Opinion 2
- Procedural guarantees 2
- Refugee sur place 2
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Accommodation centre 1
- Actors of protection 1
- Armed conflict 1
- Best interest of the child 1
- Detention 1
- Final decision 1
- Individual assessment 1
- Internal armed conflict 1
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 1
- Nationality 1
- Race 1
- Return 1
- Subsequent application 1
- Unaccompanied minor 1
- Vulnerable person 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Iran 7
- Afghanistan 5
- Iraq 3
- Somalia 3
- Russia 2
- Turkey 2
- Albania 1
- Bangladesh 1
- Burkina Faso 1
- Eritrea 1
- Gambia 1
- Ghana 1
- Senegal 1
- South Africa 1
- Syria 1
- Uganda 1