EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: Ireland
Country of Applicant: Croatia
Keywords: Real risk, Subsidiary Protection, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Serious harm
This case concerned the interpretation of Article 4(4) of the Qualification Directive and the transposing Irish measure, which had added certain wording. The Court noted that the Directive left it open to Member States to introduce more favourable standards so long as they are compatible with the Directive. The Court held that the additional wording merely allowed a decision-maker in a case of compelling reasons, to determine eligibility for subsidiary protection as established without being obliged to be fully satisfied that previous serious harm inflicted upon an applicant runs a risk...
Date: 04-12-2009
Country of Decision: Czech Republic
Country of Applicant: Ukraine
Keywords: Effective remedy (right to), Manifestly unfounded application
A time limit of seven days to submit an appeal against the decision on a manifestly unfounded asylum claim is too short to ensure an effective remedy.
Date: 01-12-2009
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Detention, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Reception conditions, Return, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect)
This case related to the conditions of detention at the Thessaloniki Aliens’ Police Directorate in Greece, the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention pending deportation and whether there was had been an effective judicial remedy to challenge his detention.
The Court found that there was a violation of Article 3 as the conditions at the detention centre were inhuman and degrading. The length of his detention violated Article 5(1) as it exceeded the time considered reasonable for the purpose of carrying out his deportation, given the Greek authorities lack of diligence. Domestic law...
Date: 26-11-2009
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Request that charge be taken, Responsibility for examining application, Visa, Family unity (right to), Vulnerable person
This was an appeal against the decision by the Federal Asylum Office to transfer the first applicant to Poland and the second applicant, including their two children, to the Czech Republic. The Asylum Court allowed the appeal and found the consultations with other Member States and the decisions of the Federal Asylum Office to be arbitrary, ignoring national legislation requiring one procedure for the whole family and violating the Dublin II Regulation’s emphasis on the necessity of maintaining family unity as well as Article 8 of the ECHR.
Date: 13-11-2009
Country of Decision: Finland
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Unaccompanied minor
The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) quashed a decision of the Finnish Immigration Service which, applying the Dublin II Regulation, did not examine the application for international protection and decided to return the applicant to Greece. The SAC returned the case to the Immigration Service for a new examination based on new evidence that was presented regarding the applicant’s health.
Date: 29-10-2009
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Indiscriminate violence, Individual threat, Internal armed conflict, Internal protection, International armed conflict, Serious harm, Subsidiary Protection
In this case the Tribunal sought to apply the guidance in Elgafaji on Art 15(c) and give country guidance on Afghanistan.
Date: 19-10-2009
Country of Decision: Hungary
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Race, Nationality, Membership of a particular social group, Gender Based Persecution, Humanitarian considerations, Internal protection, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports
The decision of the asylum authority was annulled on the basis that there was insufficient evidence that an internal protection alternative existed.
Date: 15-10-2009
Country of Decision: Czech Republic
Country of Applicant: Ivory Coast
Keywords: Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, More favourable provisions, Personal circumstances of applicant, Serious harm, Subsidiary Protection
Subsidiary protection pursuant to Art. 14a(2)(b) of the Act on Asylum (serious harm consisting of inhuman or degrading treatment) may also be granted in so-called humanitarian cases. This goes beyond the scope of Article 15(b) of the Qualification Directive; however, it is compatible with the directive. In order to grant subsidiary protection in so-called humanitarian cases, the factual circumstances need to reach the standard set out in the judgment of the ECtHR, D. v. the United Kingdom.
Date: 09-10-2009
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Serbia, South Africa
Keywords: Non-refoulement
Art 14.4 (a) of the Qualification Directive must be interpreted in accordance with Art 33.2 of the Refugee Convention. Thus, for the provisions to be applied, the individual must (1) have been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime and (2) constitute a danger to the community. It was not compatible with either Art 14.4 (a) of the Qualification Directive or Art 33.2 of the Refugee Convention for domestic legislation to provide that the conviction of certain crimes to create a presumption, that could not be rebutted, that the provisions applied to an...
Date: 26-09-2009
Country of Decision: Hungary
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Subsidiary Protection, Serious harm, Assessment of facts and circumstances, Credibility assessment, Individual assessment
The Office of Immigration and Nationality (OIN) found the applicant not credible and therefore did not assess the risk of serious harm. Instead the OIN granted protection against refoulement. The Metropolitan Court ruled that the OIN was obliged to assess conditions for subsidiary protection and serious harm even if the applicant was not found credible.
Date: 23-09-2009
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- Subsidiary Protection 12
- Serious harm 8
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 7
- Detention 6
- Effective remedy (right to) 6
- Non-refoulement 6
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 5
- Internal protection 5
- Real risk 5
- Indiscriminate violence 4
- Armed conflict 3
- Family unity (right to) 3
- Gender Based Persecution 3
- Individual assessment 3
- Individual threat 3
- Membership of a particular social group 3
- Persecution (acts of) 3
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 3
- Personal circumstances of applicant 3
- Procedural guarantees 3
- Refugee Status 3
- Torture 3
- Country of origin 2
- Country of origin information 2
- Dublin Transfer 2
- Effective access to procedures 2
- Exclusion from protection 2
- Humanitarian considerations 2
- Internal armed conflict 2
- Manifestly unfounded application 2
- Nationality 2
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 2
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 2
- Previous persecution 2
- Protection 2
- Religion 2
- Request that charge be taken 2
- Responsibility for examining application 2
- Return 2
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 2
- Safe third country 2
- Terrorism 2
- Visa 2
- Access to the labour market 1
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 1
- Actors of protection 1
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 1
- Best interest of the child 1
- Country of former habitual residence 1
- Credibility assessment 1
- Death penalty / Execution 1
- Discrimination 1
- Family member 1
- Family reunification 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- International armed conflict 1
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 1
- Material reception conditions 1
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 1
- More favourable provisions 1
- Obligation to give reasons 1
- Political Opinion 1
- Race 1
- Reception conditions 1
- Refugee sur place 1
- Relevant Documentation 1
- Residence document 1
- Safe country of origin 1
- Standard of proof 1
- Stateless person 1
- Unaccompanied minor 1
- Vulnerable person 1
- Well-founded fear 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 7
- Russia (Chechnya) 5
- Russia 4
- Algeria 3
- Iraq 3
- Jordan 2
- Somalia 2
- Ukraine 2
- Azerbaijan 1
- China 1
- Croatia 1
- Ethiopia 1
- France 1
- Iran 1
- Ivory Coast 1
- Morocco 1
- Nigeria 1
- Serbia 1
- South Africa 1
- Sri Lanka 1
- Tunisia 1
- Turkey 1
- United States 1
Filter by country of decision
- United Kingdom 6
- Czech Republic 5
- Austria 3
- Germany 3
- Hungary 2
- Ireland 2
- Netherlands 2
- Spain 2
- Finland 1
- Greece 1
- Poland 1
