EDAL case summaries
The Supreme Administrative Court defined the standard of proof of a “reasonable likelihood” of persecution and a “real risk” of serious harm. Where these criteria are met, the court must give precedence to international commitments and not apply the mandatory national rules of procedure (e.g. for an action that is out of time).
Extremely serious previous persecution was sufficient to establish a well-founded fear of persecution even when it appeared unlikely to recur.
A decision to expel an applicant with post-traumatic stress disorder to Poland did not violate Art 3 ECHR. The Member States guarantee, in accordance with Art 15 of the Reception Conditions Directive, to provide asylum applicants with the necessary medical treatment. Only in very exceptional cases does an expulsion violate Art 3 ECHR, even less frequently in cases of expulsions under the Dublin II regulation.
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- Well-founded fear 2
- Dublin Transfer 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- Genocide 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 1
- Non-refoulement 1
- Persecution (acts of) 1
- Previous persecution 1
- Procedural guarantees 1
- Real risk 1
- Reception conditions 1
- Serious harm 1
- Standard of proof 1
- Vulnerable person 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Nigeria 1
- Russia (Chechnya) 1
- Rwanda 1
Filter by country of decision
- Austria 1
- Belgium 1
- Czech Republic 1