EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: Switzerland
Country of Applicant: Morocco
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Individual threat, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Non-refoulement, Real risk, Refugee Status, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application, Serious harm, Torture
According to the principle of non-Refoulement, Switzerland is obliged to apply Art. 17 Dublin-III-Regulation, examining an asylum application, if otherwise a provision of public international law could be infringed.
That is the case when there is substantial evidence indicating that an asylum seeker will be tortured again in his home country, but the originally responsible state denied asylum and decided to deport the person. It needs to be examined, whether and to what extent the authorities...
Date: 05-09-2017
Country of Decision: Poland
Country of Applicant: Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Best interest of the child, Child Specific Considerations, Individual threat, Internal protection, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Persecution (acts of), Procedural guarantees, Refugee Status, Relevant Documentation, Subsidiary Protection
Following the appeal of the Children’s Rights Ombudsman, the Supreme Administrative Court set aside the order of the Regional Administrative Court, in relation to a challenge to the decision of the Polish Refugee Board, and set aside the aforementioned decision to refuse tolerated stay, dismissing the appeal in all other respects.
The court justified its decision with reference to the procedural errors of the Polish Refugee Board, which included failing to gather evidence in an appropriate manner and inappropriately establishing the facts relating to the Applicant’s children....
Date: 22-06-2017
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
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Country of former habitual residence, Dublin Transfer, Health (right to), Individual threat, Persecution (acts of), Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Protection, Real risk, Refugee Status, Request to take back, Return
The Asylum Court upheld the Federal Asylum Agency’s rejection of the mother and son’s application on the basis that Poland was responsible for the application under the Dublin II Regulation. The Court held that Austria was not obliged to apply Article 3(2) Dublin II Regulation due to a threatened violation of Article 3 or Article 8 ECHR.
Date: 29-11-2013
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Country of origin, Credibility assessment, Final decision, Individual threat, Non-refoulement, Persecution (acts of), Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Personal circumstances of applicant, Protection, Real risk, Refugee Status, Return, Subsidiary Protection, Well-founded fear
An application for international protection lodged by an Afghan who illegally entered Austria was rejected. The Court found that the applicant had no well-founded fear of persecution in his country of origin nor was he to be granted the subsidiary protection status.
Date: 29-11-2013
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: First country of asylum, Inadmissible application, Individual threat, Protection, Refugee Status, Well-founded fear
Interventions from third parties to proceedings initiated before the National Asylum Court may be admitted.
A person with refugee status in one European Union state who applies for refugee status in a second European Union state is presumed to have unfounded fears relating to lack of protection. However, that presumption may be rebutted by evidence to the contrary.
Date: 13-11-2013
Country of Decision: Greece
Country of Applicant: Pakistan
Keywords: Protection, Real risk, Refugee Status, Well-founded fear, Individual threat, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Obligation to give reasons
This case concerned the conditions under which a refusal to perform military service for conscientious reasons may justify granting refugee status. The Minister for Public Order did not give reasons for deviating from the competent Committee's recommendation, nor did he find it to be ambiguous or to have any other legal defect, while he could have referred the case back to that body for reassessment. The application for annulment is granted.
Date: 04-07-2012
Country of Decision: Greece
Country of Applicant: Iraq
Keywords: Individual threat, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Protection, Real risk, Refugee Status, Well-founded fear
Application for annulment of a decision by the Minister of Public Order
The contested ministerial decision, which held that the applicant's application for recognition as a refugee should be rejected because threats emanating from non-state actors do not constitute a well-founded fear of persecution within the meaning of the 1951 Convention, is in direct violation of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention.
Date: 12-07-2005
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Individual threat filterIndividual threat
- (-) Remove Refugee Status filterRefugee Status
- Real risk 6
- Protection 5
- Well-founded fear 5
- Persecution (acts of) 4
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 3
- Credibility assessment 2
- Dublin Transfer 2
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 2
- Non-refoulement 2
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 2
- Relevant Documentation 2
- Request to take back 2
- Return 2
- Subsidiary Protection 2
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 1
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 1
- Best interest of the child 1
- Burden of proof 1
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Country of former habitual residence 1
- Country of origin 1
- Detention 1
- Duty of applicant 1
- Effective access to procedures 1
- Effective remedy (right to) 1
- Final decision 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- Internal protection 1
- Obligation to give reasons 1
- Personal circumstances of applicant 1
- Procedural guarantees 1
- Relevant Facts 1
- Responsibility for examining application 1
- Serious harm 1
- Standard of proof 1
- Subsequent application 1
- Torture 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Russia 2
- Russia (Chechnya) 2
- Afghanistan 1
- Iraq 1
- Morocco 1
- Pakistan 1
Filter by country of decision
- Austria 2
- Greece 2
- France 1
- Poland 1
- Switzerland 1
