You are here
Home › Burden of proof ›EDAL case summaries
Netherlands – Court of The Hague, 19 October 2020, NL20.15181, NL20.15183, NL20.15188 and NL20.15194
Country of Decision: Netherlands
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Access to the labour market, Burden of proof, Education (right to), First country of asylum, Health (right to), Inadmissible application, Integration measures, Material reception conditions, Non-refoulement, Personal circumstances of applicant, Vulnerable person
The reception conditions for beneficiaries of international protection in Bulgaria are such that they may face severe material deprivation due to “indifference” on the part of the authorities (cfr. CJEU, Ibrahim), potentially amounting to a violation of Article 3 ECHR / Article 4 CFREU.
When the State Secretary decides that a request for international protection is not admissible, because the applicants have refugee status in Bulgaria, it is not sufficient for him to refer to the principle of mutual trust between EU Member States and to...
Date: 19-10-2020
Country of Applicant: Sudan
Keywords: Access to the labour market, Burden of proof, Credibility assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Internal armed conflict, Political Opinion, Real risk, Refugee Status, Well-founded fear
National authorities are best placed to assess the credibility of asylum claimants.
The ill-treatment of people of non-Arab ethnic origin in Sudan is not systematic. Therefore, when the personal circumstances of an applicant that may create a risk of persecution are insufficiently substantiated, the applicant’s removal to Sudan will not give rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
Date: 02-06-2020
Country of Decision: Belgium
Country of Applicant: Guinea
Keywords: Burden of proof, Credibility assessment, Exclusion from protection, Individual threat, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Previous persecution, Relevant Documentation, Relevant Facts, Safe country of origin
The fact that an asylum seeker has already been persecuted in the past or has been subject to direct threats of persecution, was considered as a well-founded argument to believe that the applicant would face the risk to be persecuted under Article 1, Section A §2 of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Date: 17-04-2020
Country of Decision: Belgium
Country of Applicant: Turkey
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, Exclusion from protection, Individual assessment, Political Opinion, Procedural guarantees, Terrorism
Well-grounded information is of central importance to any decision to exclude a person convicted for criminal matters from international protection in accordance with Article 1 F of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Date: 31-03-2020
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Benefit of doubt, Burden of proof, Detention, Effective remedy (right to), Freedom of movement (right to), Personal interview, Relevant Documentation
The administrative detention of an Afghan national was imposed on the basis of a procedural error due to the lack of relevant documentation and unjustified information by the French authorities (Prefect and Prosecutor).
Date: 26-11-2019
Country of Decision: Portugal
Country of Applicant: Congo (DRC)
Keywords: Benefit of doubt, Burden of proof, Humanitarian considerations
The applicant claims that the original Court neither made a detailed analysis of the applicant's political action – that gave rise to the persecution and, consequently, the asylum application – nor of the subsidiary protection application.
The recursive claim was declared unfounded by the Central Court, which found that there was no evidence of persecution or systematic human rights violations in the country of origin.
Date: 24-10-2019
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Armed conflict, Burden of proof, Country of origin information, Effective access to procedures, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Internal armed conflict, Internal protection, Relevant Facts, Subsidiary Protection
The Court of Appeal set aside the Upper Tribunal’s Country Guidance on internal relocation to Kabul, on the basis that it had made a factual error, wrongly stating that civilian causalities amounted to less than 0.001 per cent, rather than less than 0.1 per cent, of the population of Kabul. However, it did dismiss AS’s ground of appeal, which concerned whether internal relocation would be unreasonable.
Date: 24-05-2019
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Pakistan
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, Country of origin, Country of origin information, Individual threat, Membership of a particular social group, Personal circumstances of applicant, Religion, Standard of proof, Well-founded fear
This case dealt with the issue of the whether the guidance of MN and others Pakistan CG [2012] was still accurate in terms of asylum protection due to failing to ask the question of why an individual would act in a discreet way in their country of origin. This question draws the distinction between concealment of faith due to fear of persecution or simply due to social norms or personal preference.
WA sought to challenge the correctness of the guidance in MN and others Pakistan CG [2012] in that it...
Date: 06-03-2019
Country of Decision: Switzerland
Country of Applicant: Eritrea
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, Credibility assessment, Duty of applicant, Obligation to give reasons, Personal interview, Relevant Documentation, Relevant Facts, Standard of proof, Unaccompanied minor
When deciding upon an asylum applicant’s age, authorities should assess the evidence in a holistic way, and not rely solely on medical examinations of the applicant. If, in the absence of sufficient evidence, authorities conclude that the applicant is an adult, they need to justify their decision by reference to the grounds for its conclusion.
Date: 04-03-2019
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
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Burden of proof filterBurden of proof
- Credibility assessment 35
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 27
- Country of origin information 19
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 18
- Standard of proof 18
- Internal protection 15
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 14
- Personal circumstances of applicant 14
- Individual assessment 13
- Subsidiary Protection 13
- Real risk 12
- Relevant Documentation 12
- Benefit of doubt 11
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 11
- Political Opinion 11
- Previous persecution 11
- Relevant Facts 11
- Well-founded fear 11
- Dublin Transfer 10
- Persecution (acts of) 10
- Effective remedy (right to) 9
- Membership of a particular social group 9
- Procedural guarantees 9
- Refugee Status 9
- Child Specific Considerations 8
- Detention 8
- Duty of applicant 8
- Individual threat 8
- Religion 8
- Unaccompanied minor 8
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 7
- Effective access to procedures 7
- Obligation to give reasons 7
- Personal interview 7
- Safe third country 7
- Country of origin 6
- First country of asylum 6
- Internal armed conflict 6
- Protection 6
- Reception conditions 6
- Responsibility for examining application 6
- Access to the labour market 5
- Armed conflict 5
- Best interest of the child 5
- Exclusion from protection 5
- Humanitarian considerations 5
- Non-refoulement 5
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 5
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 5
- Serious harm 5
- Vulnerable person 5
- Indiscriminate violence 4
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 4
- Race 4
- Refugee sur place 4
- Return 4
- Health (right to) 3
- Inadmissible application 3
- Material reception conditions 3
- Nationality 3
- Safe country of origin 3
- Subsequent application 3
- Accelerated procedure 2
- Accommodation centre 2
- Country of former habitual residence 2
- Crime against humanity 2
- Delay 2
- Gender Based Persecution 2
- Indirect refoulement 2
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 2
- Request to take back 2
- Stateless person 2
- Torture 2
- Actors of protection 1
- Circumstances ceased to exist 1
- Education (right to) 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- Female genital mutilation 1
- Final decision 1
- Freedom of movement (right to) 1
- Integration measures 1
- Manifestly unfounded application 1
- Revocation of protection status 1
- Sexual orientation 1
- Temporary protection 1
- Terrorism 1
- Trafficking in human beings 1
- War crimes 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 15
- Iran 7
- Russia 6
- Sudan 6
- Nigeria 5
- Somalia 5
- Iraq 4
- Russia (Chechnya) 4
- Syria 4
- Colombia 3
- Ivory Coast 3
- Libya 3
- Pakistan 3
- Rwanda 3
- Unknown 3
- Congo (DRC) 2
- Egypt 2
- Eritrea 2
- Turkey 2
- Albania 1
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
- Burkina Faso 1
- Burundi 1
- Cameroon 1
- Ethiopia 1
- Gambia 1
- Georgia 1
- Guinea 1
- Kazakhstan 1
- Kosovo 1
- Lebanon 1
- Sierra Leone 1
- Sri Lanka 1
Filter by country of decision
- Belgium 13
- Germany 9
- United Kingdom 7
- Spain 6
- Greece 5
- Hungary 5
- Italy 4
- Sweden 4
- Czech Republic 3
- France 3
- Ireland 3
- Netherlands 3
- Slovenia 3
- Austria 2
- Denmark 2
- Poland 2
- Slovakia 2
- Switzerland 2
- Portugal 1
