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: Germany
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Inadmissible application, Refugee Status, Responsibility for examining application, Subsidiary Protection
The rules of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (“International Protection Directive”) do not prohibit the review of an application for asylum in Germany in a case where an applicant has previously been granted subsidiary protection in another Member State, if such application for asylum has been filed before 20 July 2015. This is because the inadmissibility of applications filed before 20 July 2015 is governed by the Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on...
Date: 23-10-2015
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Race, Refugee Status, Subsidiary Protection
The court found that the removal of a Somali applicant to Italy under the Dublin Regulation would not result in a violation of article 3of the Convention and would not entail any violation of the rights set in article 1, 2, 5, 6 and 13.
Date: 13-01-2015
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Benefit of doubt, Detention, Dublin Transfer, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), First country of asylum, Health (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Integration measures, Personal circumstances of applicant, Reception conditions, Refugee Status
Where negative reports regarding the reception conditions and inhuman or degrading treatment in a first country of asylum indicate that an Applicant may not be safe in such a country, an Applicant’s request to remain in a Member State pending a decision on their right to remain must be given the benefit of doubt and outweigh the public’s interest in immediate enforcement of the ordered transfer.
Date: 07-01-2015
Country of Applicant: Guinea-Bissau
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, First country of asylum, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Refugee Status, Request that charge be taken, Request to take back
The case examines the allegations of a Guinea-Bissau national who sought asylum in Belgium, that the remedies he tried in order to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in Belgium were neither speedy nor effective, in violation of Article 5 para 4. He further complained under Article 3 that his deportation to Greece would place him at risk of ill-treatment and under Article 13 that he did not have an effective remedy.
Date: 14-02-2014
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Detention, Dublin Transfer, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Family reunification, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Material reception conditions, Personal interview, Refugee Status, Return
The Court examined the complaints of a Somali national concerning her detention conditions in Malta (Article 3), which deteriorated her mental health and resulted in inhuman and degrading treatment. She further alleged that her detention was in breach of Article 5 § 1, 2 and 4 (Right to liberty and security).
Date: 09-12-2013
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 Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Detention, Dublin Transfer, Effective remedy (right to), Refugee Status, Request that charge be taken, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application
The case examines the allegations of an Afghan national that the extension of his detention for an additional two months had been unlawful and contrary to Article 5(1) of the Convention and that he had not had at his disposal an effective remedy for the review of his detention in violation of Article 5(4) ECHR.
Date: 11-07-2013
Country of Decision: Poland
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Family member, Family reunification, Family unity (right to), Inadmissible application, Refugee Status, Request that charge be taken, Subsequent application
During the refugee status proceedings, the administrative authorities should clarify on what grounds a foreign husband has received protection in another country. These circumstances should be assessed consistently in two countries.
There are no objective reasons why the respective positions of two individuals should be viewed differently merely because they have applied for refugee status in two different democratic countries that respect human rights.
Date: 01-09-2011
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Dublin Transfer filterDublin Transfer
- (-) Remove Refugee Status filterRefugee Status
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 5
- Request to take back 4
- Detention 3
- Effective remedy (right to) 3
- Request that charge be taken 3
- Responsibility for examining application 3
- Effective access to procedures 2
- Family reunification 2
- First country of asylum 2
- Health (right to) 2
- Inadmissible application 2
- Individual threat 2
- Real risk 2
- Return 2
- Subsidiary Protection 2
- Benefit of doubt 1
- Country of former habitual residence 1
- Family member 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- Integration measures 1
- Material reception conditions 1
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 1
- Non-refoulement 1
- Persecution (acts of) 1
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 1
- Personal circumstances of applicant 1
- Personal interview 1
- Protection 1
- Race 1
- Reception conditions 1
- Serious harm 1
- Subsequent application 1
- Torture 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 3
- Russia 2
- Somalia 2
- Guinea-Bissau 1
- Morocco 1
Filter by country of decision
- Germany 2
- Austria 1
- Poland 1
- Switzerland 1
