EDAL case summaries
Country of Applicant: Sudan
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Access to the labour market, Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, Country of origin, Detention, Effective remedy (right to), Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Persecution (acts of), Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Personal circumstances of applicant, Previous persecution, Race, Real risk, Refugee Status, Well-founded fear
The case examines the allegations of a Sudanese national- member of a non-Arab tribe in Sudan- that his deportation to that country would expose him to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention because of his race and supposed links with the rebel movements in the country.
Date: 15-04-2015
Country of Applicant: Sudan
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Credibility assessment, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Non-refoulement, Personal interview, Procedural guarantees, Refugee Status, Relevant Facts, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Torture
The detention of asylum applicants may undermine their ability to claim asylum and that an ‘effective remedy’ requires an appeal with suspensive effect against refoulement in order to prevent irreparable harm, sufficient time to prepare the appeal and effective legal assistance and interpretation.
Date: 02-05-2012
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Togo
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN, Circumstances ceased to exist, Duty of applicant, Previous persecution, Real risk, Refugee Status, Relevant Facts, Standard of proof
1. Changes in the home country are only considered to be sufficiently significant and non-temporary if the refugee’s fear of persecution can no longer be regarded as well-founded.
2. Based on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) which applies to the concept of “real risk” according to Article 3 ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights), a uniform standardof probability is applied to assessing the likelihood of persecution in the context of refugee protection; this corresponds to the standard of substantial probability.
Date: 01-03-2012
Country of Applicant: Eritrea
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Assessment of facts and circumstances, Country of origin, Credibility assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Protection, Real risk, Refugee Status, Safe country of origin, Well-founded fear
The European Court of Human Rights held that the expulsion of an Eritrean deserter to Eritrea would give rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
Date: 05-07-2005
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Accelerated procedure filterAccelerated procedure
- (-) Remove Refugee Status filterRefugee Status
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 3
- Real risk 3
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 2
- Country of origin 2
- Credibility assessment 2
- Effective remedy (right to) 2
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 2
- Previous persecution 2
- Relevant Facts 2
- Well-founded fear 2
- Access to the labour market 1
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 1
- Burden of proof 1
- Circumstances ceased to exist 1
- Detention 1
- Duty of applicant 1
- Effective access to procedures 1
- Individual assessment 1
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 1
- Non-refoulement 1
- Persecution (acts of) 1
- Personal circumstances of applicant 1
- Personal interview 1
- Procedural guarantees 1
- Protection 1
- Race 1
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 1
- Safe country of origin 1
- Standard of proof 1
- Torture 1
Filter by country of decision
- Germany 1
