EDAL case summaries
Country of Applicant: Iraq
Keywords: Child Specific Considerations, Credibility assessment, Detention, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
The ECtHR reviewed if the detention of a family with three children in a border police’s detention facility would be considered as a breach of Article 3 ECHR.
Date: 07-12-2017
Country of Decision: Denmark
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Country of origin information, Credibility assessment, Relevant Facts, Revocation of protection status, Subsidiary Protection
The complainant is an ethnic Galadi and a Muslim from Afgoye, Somalia. On 6 April 2017, the Danish Immigration Service decided not to prolong the complainant’s subsidiary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 11 (2), cf. Art. 19 (1) no. 1 and Art. 19 (7) cf. Art. 26 (1).
After an overall assessment of the country of origin information the Board found that a deportation of the complainant to Afgoye no longer constitutes a violation of Denmark’s international obligations including ECHR article 3. However, regarding the assessment under the Aliens Act article 26, the Board found...
Date: 01-12-2017
Country of Applicant: Senegal
Keywords: Country of origin, Credibility assessment, Manifestly unfounded application, Sexual orientation, Well-founded fear
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.
Date: 26-09-2017
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Benefit of doubt, Child Specific Considerations, Country of origin information, Credibility assessment, Effective access to procedures, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Real risk, Standard of proof, Well-founded fear
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.
Date: 27-07-2017
Country of Decision: Denmark
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Child Specific Considerations, Country of origin information, Credibility assessment, Gender Based Persecution, Refugee Status, Refugee sur place, Revocation of protection status, Subsidiary Protection
The applicant is an ethnic Somali and a Sunni Muslim belonging to the Bon Clan from Mesegawayn in the Galgaduud Region, Somalia. The applicant was originally in 2014 granted subsidiary protection by the Danish Immigration Service under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (2). In February 2017, the Danish Immigration Service revoked the applicant’s subsidiary protection.
The account of the applicant regarding his original application was rejected by the Board due to a lack of credibility.
The majority of the Board found probable that the applicant’s daughter if returned to Somalia...
Date: 19-06-2017
Country of Applicant: Iraq
Keywords: Burden of proof, Country of origin information, Credibility assessment, Individual threat, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Internal protection, Previous persecution, Standard of proof
The return of the applicants to Iraq violates Article 3 ECHR as there is a real risk of ill-treatment based on their personal circumstances as a targeted group and the Iraqi authorities’ diminished ability to protect them.
Date: 23-08-2016
Country of Decision: Switzerland
Country of Applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Country of origin information, Credibility assessment, Gender Based Persecution, Personal circumstances of applicant, Personal interview, Trafficking in human beings
In cases of reasonable suspicion that a person applying for asylum was a victim of human trafficking, the Swiss State Secretary for Migration is obliged to clarify the facts thoroughly on its own initiative.
Date: 18-07-2016
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Albania
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Child Specific Considerations, Country of origin information, Credibility assessment, Internal protection, Manifestly unfounded application, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Membership of a particular social group, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Personal circumstances of applicant, Protection, Real risk, Refugee Status, Safe country of origin, Vulnerable person, Well-founded fear
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”.
Date: 23-06-2016
Country of Decision: Sweden
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Credibility assessment, Dependant (Dependent person), Family unity (right to), Relevant Documentation, Standard of proof
The Applicant and the Applicant’s children were applying for leave to remain in Sweden due to affiliation with their husband and father respectively who had permanent residency in Sweden. The Applicant and the Applicant’s children were all granted evidentiary relief regarding their identities. Further, one of the Applicant’s children, a 20 year old daughter, was deemed to fulfil the criteria for household community and special dependency. The Applicant and all of the Applicant’s children were granted leave to remain.
Date: 01-06-2016
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Burden of proof, Credibility assessment, Detention, Duty of applicant, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Individual threat, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Persecution (acts of), Real risk, Refugee Status, Relevant Documentation, Relevant Facts, Standard of proof, Subsequent application, Well-founded fear
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.
Date: 19-01-2016
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Credibility assessment filterCredibility assessment
- Country of origin information 23
- Well-founded fear 18
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 17
- Real risk 17
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 15
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 15
- Internal protection 14
- Membership of a particular social group 14
- Refugee Status 13
- Persecution (acts of) 12
- Subsidiary Protection 12
- Burden of proof 11
- Relevant Documentation 11
- Standard of proof 11
- Individual threat 10
- Previous persecution 10
- Religion 10
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 9
- Personal circumstances of applicant 9
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 8
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 8
- Protection 8
- Serious harm 7
- Torture 7
- Country of origin 6
- Effective remedy (right to) 6
- Indiscriminate violence 6
- Benefit of doubt 5
- Non-refoulement 5
- Refugee sur place 5
- Relevant Facts 5
- Actors of protection 4
- Child Specific Considerations 4
- Discrimination 4
- Duty of applicant 4
- Gender Based Persecution 4
- Individual assessment 4
- Personal interview 4
- Political Opinion 4
- Sexual orientation 4
- Subsequent application 4
- Accelerated procedure 3
- Armed conflict 3
- Effective access to procedures 3
- Manifestly unfounded application 3
- Procedural guarantees 3
- Return 3
- Vulnerable person 3
- Death penalty / Execution 2
- Detention 2
- Internal armed conflict 2
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 2
- Obligation to give reasons 2
- Race 2
- Revocation of protection status 2
- Safe country of origin 2
- Trafficking in human beings 2
- Access to the labour market 1
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 1
- Best interest of the child 1
- Dependant (Dependent person) 1
- Exclusion from protection 1
- Family reunification 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- Final decision 1
- Humanitarian considerations 1
- Nationality 1
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 1
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 1
- Unaccompanied minor 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Somalia 10
- Iran 9
- Afghanistan 8
- Iraq 7
- Nigeria 3
- Russia 3
- Sri Lanka 3
- Libya 2
- Albania 1
- Angola 1
- Bangladesh 1
- Belarus 1
- Burkina Faso 1
- Eritrea 1
- Kosovo 1
- Niger 1
- Pakistan 1
- Russia (Chechnya) 1
- Senegal 1
- Sudan 1
- Syria 1
- Uganda 1
- Uzbekistan 1
Filter by country of decision
- Greece 7
- Sweden 5
- United Kingdom 5
- Hungary 4
- Austria 3
- Denmark 2
- Germany 2
- Ireland 2
- Poland 2
- Belgium 1
- Czech Republic 1
- Finland 1
- Italy 1
- Netherlands 1
- Switzerland 1
