You are here
Home › Burden of proof ›EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Sierra Leone
Keywords: Burden of proof, Dublin Transfer, Responsibility for examining application
The extension of the transfer period in accordance with Art. 29 para. 2 sentence 2 Dublin Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 (Dublin III Regulation) requires that the asylum applicant absconds, which has to be proven by the transferring authority.
Absconding is only the case, if the asylum applicant cannot be reached by the competent authorities for an (undefined) longer period of time. The intention to evade the authorities does not have to be proven. The circumstances of the individual case are decisive.
Date: 09-01-2019
Country of Applicant: Egypt
Keywords: Burden of proof, Detention, Refugee Status
The ECtHR ruled that the detention of an Egyptian national upon arrival in Belgium was lawful as there had been no violation of Article 5(1) of ECHR and the refusal of refugee status was justified.
Date: 04-04-2018
Country of Decision: Denmark
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Burden of proof, Duty of applicant, Relevant Documentation, Relevant Facts, Subsidiary Protection
The complainant is a Sunni Muslim from Mogadishu, Somalia. In July 2015 the Danish Immigration Service decided that his subsidiary protection status under the Danish Aliens Act. Art. 7 (2) had lapsed according to the Danish Aliens Act Art. 17 (1) and (4). The Refugee Appeals Board did not consider that the Danish Immigrations Service had lifted its burden of proof according to the Danish Aliens Act Art 17 (4). Consequently, the Board granted the complainant continued subsidiary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (2).
Date: 01-12-2017
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Gambia
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Benefit of doubt, Burden of proof, Child Specific Considerations, Credibility assessment, Unaccompanied minor
In case of reasonable doubt, the statement of the applicant for asylum about his or her date of birth has to be viewed as a credible statement.
Date: 27-06-2017
Country of Decision: Poland
Country of Applicant: Pakistan
Keywords: Burden of proof, Child Specific Considerations, Detention, Effective remedy (right to), Individual assessment, Manifestly unfounded application, Material reception conditions, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Reception conditions, Relevant Documentation, Relevant Facts, Standard of proof
The application of S.C. and her minor children Z.C. and F.C. related to the cassation of an Appeal Court judgement regarding compensation for the harm they suffered as a result of an indisputably unjust decision to place the Applicants in a Guarded Detention Centre for Foreigners. The Supreme Court reversed the challenged judgement and passed the case to the Appeal Court for re-consideration.
Date: 02-03-2017
Country of Decision: Denmark
Country of Applicant: Lebanon
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, First country of asylum, Internal protection, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Real risk, Relevant Documentation, Relevant Facts, Religion, Well-founded fear
A Stateless Palestinian and Sunni Muslim from Lebanon, single woman, born and raised in Saudi Arabia who had a conflict with her family because she had had a relationship with a French Christian man and lost her virginity.
The Board found that seen in isolation as a Stateless Palestinian the applicant is covered by the Danish Aliens Act Art 7 (1).
The Board found that because the applicant had never resided in Lebanon, did not have any relation to that country, and due to her conflict with her family and based on country of origin information regarding entry options to Saudi...
Date: 15-02-2017
Country of Decision: Ireland
Country of Applicant: Congo (DRC)
Keywords: Burden of proof, Country of origin information, Credibility assessment
An application, by way of judicial review, for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the second named defendant (that being the International Protection Appeals Tribunal) on the basis of the application of the incorrect standard of proof being applied, credibility assessment and disregard of notice of appeal and country of origin information.
Date: 15-02-2017
Country of Applicant: Georgia
Keywords: Burden of proof, Country of origin, Country of origin information, Family unity (right to), Health (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Relevant Documentation
Article 3 ECHR is triggered in cases involving the removal of a seriously ill individual where the absence of appropriate treatment in the receiving country or the lack of access to such treatment, exposes the individual to a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in his or her state of health resulting in intense suffering or to a significant reduction in life expectancy.
Access to sufficient and appropriate medical care must be available in reality, not merely in theory and the impact of removal on an applicant must be assessed by considering how an applicant’s condition would...
Date: 13-12-2016
Country of Decision: Belgium
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, Dublin Transfer, Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Reception conditions, Responsibility for examining application
The transfer of asylum seekers from Belgium to Austria, under the Dublin Regulation, is contrary to the principle of due diligence, because the government has failed to obtain information on the effects of the moratorium of the processing of asylum applications in Austria.
Date: 25-08-2016
Country of Applicant: Iraq
Keywords: Burden of proof, Country of origin information, Credibility assessment, Individual threat, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Internal protection, Previous persecution, Standard of proof
The return of the applicants to Iraq violates Article 3 ECHR as there is a real risk of ill-treatment based on their personal circumstances as a targeted group and the Iraqi authorities’ diminished ability to protect them.
Date: 23-08-2016
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Burden of proof filterBurden of proof
- Credibility assessment 30
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 22
- Country of origin information 16
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 16
- Standard of proof 16
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 14
- Internal protection 13
- Subsidiary Protection 12
- Individual assessment 11
- Personal circumstances of applicant 11
- Real risk 11
- Benefit of doubt 9
- Dublin Transfer 9
- Political Opinion 9
- Previous persecution 9
- Relevant Documentation 9
- Effective remedy (right to) 8
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 8
- Membership of a particular social group 8
- Persecution (acts of) 8
- Procedural guarantees 8
- Refugee Status 8
- Well-founded fear 8
- Child Specific Considerations 7
- Detention 7
- Relevant Facts 7
- Religion 7
- Safe third country 7
- Duty of applicant 6
- Individual threat 6
- Protection 6
- Reception conditions 6
- Responsibility for examining application 6
- Unaccompanied minor 6
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 5
- Effective access to procedures 5
- First country of asylum 5
- Obligation to give reasons 5
- Personal interview 5
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 5
- Serious harm 5
- Armed conflict 4
- Best interest of the child 4
- Country of origin 4
- Humanitarian considerations 4
- Indiscriminate violence 4
- Internal armed conflict 4
- Non-refoulement 4
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 4
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 4
- Race 4
- Refugee sur place 4
- Vulnerable person 4
- Access to the labour market 3
- Nationality 3
- Return 3
- Subsequent application 3
- Accelerated procedure 2
- Accommodation centre 2
- Country of former habitual residence 2
- Crime against humanity 2
- Delay 2
- Exclusion from protection 2
- Health (right to) 2
- Inadmissible application 2
- Indirect refoulement 2
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 2
- Material reception conditions 2
- Request to take back 2
- Stateless person 2
- Torture 2
- Actors of protection 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- Female genital mutilation 1
- Final decision 1
- Gender Based Persecution 1
- Manifestly unfounded application 1
- Revocation of protection status 1
- Sexual orientation 1
- Temporary protection 1
- Trafficking in human beings 1
- War crimes 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 13
- Iran 7
- Russia 6
- Nigeria 5
- Somalia 5
- Iraq 4
- Russia (Chechnya) 4
- Sudan 4
- Colombia 3
- Libya 3
- Rwanda 3
- Syria 3
- Unknown 3
- Egypt 2
- Pakistan 2
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
- Burkina Faso 1
- Burundi 1
- Cameroon 1
- Congo (DRC) 1
- Eritrea 1
- Ethiopia 1
- Gambia 1
- Georgia 1
- Ivory Coast 1
- Kazakhstan 1
- Kosovo 1
- Lebanon 1
- Sierra Leone 1
- Sri Lanka 1
- Turkey 1
Filter by country of decision
- Belgium 10
- Germany 9
- Greece 5
- Hungary 5
- United Kingdom 5
- Italy 4
- Spain 4
- Sweden 4
- Czech Republic 3
- Ireland 3
- Slovenia 3
- Austria 2
- Denmark 2
- France 2
- Netherlands 2
- Poland 2
- Slovakia 2
- Switzerland 1
