EDAL case summaries
This case concerned the assessment of the option of internal relocation within Sierra Leone in the context of a threat from a family member. The Court found that, provided that regard has been had to relevant country of origin information, there is no obligation on the decision-maker under Article 8.2 of the Qualification Directive to seek out specific information on general economic and social conditions in a proposed site of re-location in the absence of any specific objection on that basis being put forward by the asylum seeker.
This case concerned the interpretation of Article 4.3 of the Qualification Directive and the nature of the assessment of the facts and circumstances of a refugee application that should take place. The Court rejected the argument that a failure by a first instance decision-maker to consider each of the mandatory matters set out in Article 4.3 rendered that decision unlawful such that it must be quashed, rather than allowing for any such defect to be cured by an appeal body. The obligation imposed by the Directive is satisfied when any errors or misjudgements at the first instance stage,...
The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 3 with regards to the applicant’s detention conditions in Soufli and Attiki (Petrou Rali). It further found a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 due to the unlawful detention of the applicant and the lack of remedies to challenge it.
The petition for an ab initio examination of the asylum application was rejected by the General Secretary of the Ministry of Public Order (decision being appealed in this case) because the evidence submitted was not deemed to be new and crucial. That ruling in the contested decision was flawed because the General Secretary did not have the authority to decide whether the Applicant had refugee status deeming the evidence submitted (a medical report which linked clinical findings to torture) to not be crucial for granting asylum. Instead, he should have ordered an ab initio...
The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 5 para 1 (f), 4 and 5 with regards to some of the eleven applicants in this case, who were detained as suspected terrorists by UK authorities.
Unlike with subsidiary protection, it is necessary for there to be a causal link between persecution and the grounds for persecution when assessing the conditions for granting asylum. The fact that a conflict between LTTE and governmental armed units affected Tamil civilians does not mean nationality qualifies as a ground of persecution.
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Refugee Status filterRefugee Status
- Real risk 3
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 2
- Detention 2
- Effective remedy (right to) 2
- Persecution (acts of) 2
- Well-founded fear 2
- Armed conflict 1
- Country of origin 1
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 1
- Internal protection 1
- Material reception conditions 1
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 1
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 1
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 1
- Political Opinion 1
- Protection 1
- Relevant Documentation 1
- Return 1
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 1
- Safe country of origin 1
- Subsequent application 1
- Subsidiary Protection 1
- Terrorism 1
- Torture 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
Filter by country of decision
- Ireland 2
- Czech Republic 1
- Greece 1