You are here
Home ›EDAL case summaries
Application for annulment of a decision by the Minister of Public Order
The case addressed the absence of procedural guarantees in the context of appointing a Commissioner and assessing the applicant’s level of maturity with regard to the need for special treatment of an unaccompanied minor.
The lack of personal persecution of an alien applicant does not preclude the recognition of refugee status if it is shown that there is an objective and well-founded fear of individual persecution in the applicant's country.
The Court found that the decision of the Minister for...
The case concerned an accelerated procedure decision. The applicant, an Uzbek national, claimed asylum only after he feared removal from the Czech Republic, his application was therefore rejected as unfounded by the Ministry of the Interior. However, the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) disagreed and set a three condition test to be applied in order to determine when an application is unfounded. The SAC also pointed out that the grounds for applying for international protection can be based on events which had taken place since the applicant left the country of origin.
If a subsequent application is based on “post-flight reasons” created by the applicant, he has to provide good reasons why he has become politically active or has intensified his activities.
As a rule, “post-flight reasons” which have been created by the applicant following the termination of an asylum procedure are not relevant for granting refugee status. An exception to this rule may be given if the activities which the applicant engaged in since he left the country of origin constitute a continuation of convictions which have been practiced before. However, activities which...
The applicant, being in a religiously mixed marriage, can be considered as a person having a justified fear of being persecuted for religious reasons. In accordance with the Qualification Directive, the deciding authority is obliged to gather sufficient information on the accessibility and effectiveness of protection provided by state authorities in the country of origin.
The principle of family unity, which is a general principle of refugee law resulting in particular from the 1951 Refugee Convention, is not applicable to persons falling within the scheme of subsidiary protection, as defined both by the Qualification Directive and by the internal legislative provisions which transpose it.
It is important to inquire whether there are elements relative to the situation of homosexuals in their country which enable them to be considered as forming a group whose members would face a risk of persecution, for reasons of common characteristics which define them in the eyes of the authorities and society.
The applicant’s refugee status was revoked due to a change in circumstances in the applicant’s country of origin as per section 107 subsection 5 of the Aliens’ Act, where the applicant’s individual need of protection was assessed in light of the notable and established social change in Sudan.
The situation in Paktia province in Afghanistan meets the requirements of an internal armed conflict in terms of Section 60 (7) (2) Residence Act / Art 15 (c) of the Qualification Directive. An internal armed conflict does not necessarily have to affect the whole of the country of origin. The concept of internal protection does not apply if the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to reside in another part of the country because of an illness, even if that illness is not life-threatening (epilepsy in the case at hand).
The applicant was not granted refugee status or protection against deportation in accordance with Section 60 (2) through (7) of the Residence Act. The court found:
- A single woman with a “Western” lifestyle is not at risk of gender-based political persecution by non-State actors in Iraq.
- The risk of the applicant becoming a victim of an honour killing (or respectively a weaker, non-life threatening disciplinary measure by her clan) because of her moral conduct, disapproved by her clan, constitutes an increased individual risk. However, this risk is not the result of...
A judge considering an appeal against removal on Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) grounds had a duty to examine reception facilities in a child’s country of origin.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
- National Case law 1420
- ECrtHR Case law 254
- CJEU Case law 125
Filter by applicable legal provisions
- European Union Law 1404
- Council of Europe Instruments 707
- International Law 539
- UNHCR Handbook 102
Filter by keywords
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 280
- Subsidiary Protection 256
- Effective remedy (right to) 248
- Detention 240
- Dublin Transfer 233
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 229
- Refugee Status 222
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 216
- Credibility assessment 211
- Procedural guarantees 202
- Effective access to procedures 185
- Membership of a particular social group 163
- Return 163
- Country of origin information 161
- Internal protection 158
- Individual assessment 125
- Well-founded fear 124
- Real risk 122
- Persecution (acts of) 121
- Responsibility for examining application 121
- Family unity (right to) 120
- Reception conditions 117
- Personal circumstances of applicant 116
- Non-refoulement 102
- Political Opinion 102
- Serious harm 98
- Burden of proof 97
- Exclusion from protection 95
- Best interest of the child 93
- Vulnerable person 92
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 88
- Subsequent application 87
- Protection 82
- Child Specific Considerations 81
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 79
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 79
- Internal armed conflict 78
- Standard of proof 78
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 77
- Unaccompanied minor 76
- Family member 74
- Material reception conditions 73
- Indiscriminate violence 72
- Relevant Documentation 72
- Gender Based Persecution 71
- Religion 71
- Torture 69
- Family reunification 68
- Relevant Facts 67
- Safe third country 67
- Individual threat 63
- Humanitarian considerations 61
- Personal interview 61
- Request to take back 61
- Country of origin 58
- Previous persecution 57
- Actors of protection 55
- Discrimination 55
- Obligation to give reasons 51
- Delay 49
- Sexual orientation 49
- Inadmissible application 48
- Accelerated procedure 47
- Health (right to) 47
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 46
- Refugee sur place 46
- Armed conflict 42
- Revocation of protection status 42
- Terrorism 40
- First country of asylum 39
- Request that charge be taken 39
- Benefit of doubt 37
- Manifestly unfounded application 34
- Safe country of origin 33
- Access to the labour market 32
- Accommodation centre 32
- Nationality 31
- Residence document 30
- Crime against humanity 29
- Dependant (Dependent person) 29
- Duty of applicant 28
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 26
- Race 25
- Visa 25
- Circumstances ceased to exist 24
- Final decision 24
- Serious non-political crime 24
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 23
- Stateless person 22
- Freedom of movement (right to) 21
- Trafficking in human beings 20
- Cessation of protection 19
- Integration measures 18
- Indirect refoulement 17
- War crimes 17
- Female genital mutilation 15
- More favourable provisions 11
- Country of former habitual residence 10
- International armed conflict 10
- Death penalty / Execution 9
- Education (right to) 8
- Sponsor 8
- Withdrawal of protection application 8
- Temporary protection 4
- Genocide 3
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 218
- Iraq 125
- Iran 104
- Russia 92
- Syria 92
- Nigeria 88
- Somalia 84
- Turkey 60
- Unknown 59
- Pakistan 45
- Eritrea 43
- Russia (Chechnya) 41
- Algeria 37
- Sudan 37
- Congo (DRC) 36
- Sri Lanka 35
- Kosovo 27
- Palestinian Territory 25
- Morocco 23
- Ukraine 22
- Cameroon 21
- Guinea 19
- Ivory Coast 19
- Armenia 18
- Albania 17
- Ethiopia 16
- Lebanon 16
- Rwanda 16
- China 15
- Bangladesh 14
- Georgia 14
- Ghana 14
- Colombia 13
- Gambia 13
- Tunisia 13
- Egypt 12
- Serbia 12
- Senegal 11
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 10
- Sierra Leone 10
- Uzbekistan 10
- Mali 9
- Belarus 8
- India 8
- Kyrgyzstan 8
- Vietnam 8
- Angola 7
- Kazakhstan 7
- Mongolia 7
- Uganda 7
- Azerbaijan 6
- France 6
- Libya 6
- South Africa 6
- Togo 6
- United Kingdom 6
- Zimbabwe 6
- Burundi 5
- Croatia 5
- Mauritania 5
- Tanzania 5
- Bulgaria 4
- Jordan 4
- Kenya 4
- Lithuania 4
- Moldova 4
- United States 4
- Western Sahara 4
- Brazil 3
- China (Tibet) 3
- Cuba 3
- Germany 3
- Liberia 3
- Macedonia 3
- Benin 2
- Bhutan 2
- Botswana 2
- Chad 2
- Congo (Republic of) 2
- Cyprus 2
- Haiti 2
- Israel 2
- Kuwait 2
- Myanmar 2
- Niger 2
- North Korea 2
- Saudi Arabia 2
- Slovakia 2
- South Korea 2
- Tajikistan 2
- Venezuela 2
- Austria 1
- Burkina Faso 1
- Central African Republic 1
- Comoros 1
- Czech Republic 1
- Djibouti 1
- Dominican Republic 1
- Ecuador 1
- Gabon 1
- Greece 1
- Guinea-Bissau 1
- Indonesia 1
- Italy 1
- Jamaica 1
- Madagascar 1
- Malawi 1
- Montenegro 1
- Namibia 1
- Nepal 1
- New Zealand 1
- Philippines 1
- Poland 1
- Romania 1
- Thailand 1
- Zambia 1
Filter by country of decision
- France 177
- Germany 162
- United Kingdom 149
- Austria 97
- Ireland 88
- Belgium 85
- Sweden 74
- Netherlands 66
- Spain 62
- Greece 59
- Czech Republic 58
- Poland 58
- Italy 52
- Hungary 47
- Finland 42
- Slovenia 35
- Slovakia 30
- Denmark 25
- Switzerland 17
- Luxembourg 16
- Portugal 13
- Cyprus 7