EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: Poland
Country of Applicant: Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Best interest of the child, Child Specific Considerations, Individual threat, Internal protection, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Persecution (acts of), Procedural guarantees, Refugee Status, Relevant Documentation, Subsidiary Protection
Following the appeal of the Children’s Rights Ombudsman, the Supreme Administrative Court set aside the order of the Regional Administrative Court, in relation to a challenge to the decision of the Polish Refugee Board, and set aside the aforementioned decision to refuse tolerated stay, dismissing the appeal in all other respects.
The court justified its decision with reference to the procedural errors of the Polish Refugee Board, which included failing to gather evidence in an appropriate manner and inappropriately establishing the facts relating to the Applicant’s children....
Date: 22-06-2017
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Mongolia
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Country of origin information, Discrimination, Membership of a particular social group, Persecution (acts of), Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Previous persecution, Real risk, Refugee Status, Sexual orientation, Well-founded fear
An applicant may be granted refugee status under Article 1 of the 1951 Geneva Convention for fear of persecution based on sexual orientation. This depends on whether or not, according to the conditions prevailing in the country of origin, persons sharing a sexual orientation may be regarded as a social group within the meaning of the Convention.
Date: 31-05-2017
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Congo (DRC), Lebanon, United Kingdom
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Best interest of the child, Dependant (Dependent person), Family member, Family reunification, Family unity (right to), Persecution (acts of), Personal circumstances of applicant, Refugee Status, Relevant Documentation, Sponsor, Well-founded fear
The Immigration Rules (“the Rules”) minimum income requirements (“the MIR”) for individuals who have a right to live in the UK who wish to bring their non-EEA citizen spouses to live with them are not open to legal challenge.
The Rules fail unlawfully to give effect to the duty of the Secretary of State (“the SoS”) in respect of the welfare of children under s.55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 (“the 2009 Act”), however the challenge to the validity of the Rules was dismissed.
To ensure that their decisions are compatible with the Human Rights Act...
Date: 22-02-2017
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Child Specific Considerations, Individual assessment, Membership of a particular social group, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Persecution (acts of), Personal circumstances of applicant, Real risk, Refugee Status
This case dealt with the extent to which in the case of a child the prospect of discrimination could amount to a real risk of persecution sufficient to found a successful asylum claim in a situation where a comparably placed adult would not be at such a risk.
Date: 24-11-2016
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Ukraine
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Country of origin information, Individual assessment, Internal protection, Obligation to give reasons, Persecution (acts of), Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Personal circumstances of applicant, Political Opinion, Refugee Status, Relevant Facts, Subsidiary Protection
In the course of an asylum procedure, the statements of the asylum seeker have to be assessed integrally. This includes, inter alia, an analysis of (up-to-date) country reports. However, such analysis is not carried out in a sufficient manner where there are only superficial references to the country of origin information. Rather, it is required that the information contained is actually taken into consideration when taking the decision, applied to the specific circumstances of each case and compared to the information provided by the asylum seeker(s).
... Date: 17-11-2016
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Burden of proof, Credibility assessment, Detention, Duty of applicant, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Individual threat, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Persecution (acts of), Real risk, Refugee Status, Relevant Documentation, Relevant Facts, Standard of proof, Subsequent application, Well-founded fear
The Court found a violation of Article 3 in relation to a subsequent application for asylum, which had been rejected on the basis that it contained no new elements indicating that the Applicants ran a real risk of being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment on deportation to Russia. Because new information had in fact been provided, the national authorities were under an obligation to thoroughly review the information in order to assure themselves that the Applicants’ rights under Article 3 would be safeguarded.
Date: 19-01-2016
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Detention, Persecution (acts of), Refugee Status, Return, Subsidiary Protection
Deprivation of liberty as allowed by art. 5.1(f) of the Convention not only has to be with a view to deportation, but it also has to be in compliance with national law, and free from arbitrariness.
The submission of an asylum application does not as such imply that detention is no longer with a view to deportation.
Date: 22-09-2015
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Persecution (acts of), Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Political Opinion, Refugee Status, Well-founded fear
There is a real risk that by virtue of his predicted employment in the media sector the Appellant will be persecuted for political opinion and/or that a breach of his rights under Articles 2 and 3 ECHR will occur.
The Appellant is not to be denied refugee status on the ground that it would be open to him to seek to engage in employment other than in the journalistic or media sector.
Date: 05-06-2015
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: India, Pakistan
Keywords: Actors of protection, Internal protection, Persecution (acts of), Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Protection, Refugee Status
The operation of an effective legal system for the detection, prosecution and punishment of acts constituting persecution or serious harm and access to such system by the claimant may not, in a given case, amount to protection. Article 7(2) of the Qualfication Directive is non-prescriptive in nature. The duty imposed on states to take “reasonable steps” imports the concepts of margin of appreciation and proportionality.
Date: 29-05-2015
Country of Applicant: Sudan
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, Country of origin, Detention, 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 relates to a Sudanese national of Tunjur origin who claimed a risk of being subjected to ill-treatment if expelled to Sudan on the grounds of his ethnic origin and supposed ties with the JEM, the rebels’ movement against the regime in Sudan.
Date: 15-04-2015
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Persecution (acts of) filterPersecution (acts of)
- (-) Remove Refugee Status filterRefugee Status
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 16
- Well-founded fear 14
- Real risk 11
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 10
- Protection 10
- Discrimination 8
- Membership of a particular social group 8
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 7
- Personal circumstances of applicant 7
- Country of origin information 6
- Individual assessment 6
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 6
- Internal protection 6
- Political Opinion 6
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 5
- Actors of protection 5
- Detention 5
- Gender Based Persecution 5
- Previous persecution 5
- Relevant Documentation 5
- Sexual orientation 5
- Child Specific Considerations 4
- Country of origin 4
- Credibility assessment 4
- Effective remedy (right to) 4
- Individual threat 4
- Subsidiary Protection 4
- Burden of proof 3
- Final decision 3
- Non-refoulement 3
- Race 3
- Religion 3
- Return 3
- Best interest of the child 2
- Effective access to procedures 2
- Family member 2
- Manifestly unfounded application 2
- Nationality 2
- Procedural guarantees 2
- Refugee sur place 2
- Relevant Facts 2
- Standard of proof 2
- Subsequent application 2
- Torture 2
- Unaccompanied minor 2
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Access to the labour market 1
- Country of former habitual residence 1
- Dependant (Dependent person) 1
- Dublin Transfer 1
- Duty of applicant 1
- Family reunification 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- Female genital mutilation 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 1
- Obligation to give reasons 1
- Personal interview 1
- Request to take back 1
- Revocation of protection status 1
- Safe country of origin 1
- Safe third country 1
- Sponsor 1
- Stateless person 1
- Terrorism 1
- Visa 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 5
- Somalia 3
- Congo (DRC) 2
- Nigeria 2
- Pakistan 2
- Russia 2
- Sierra Leone 2
- Sudan 2
- Syria 2
- Algeria 1
- Angola 1
- Azerbaijan 1
- Czech Republic 1
- Egypt 1
- Eritrea 1
- Ethiopia 1
- Georgia 1
- Ghana 1
- India 1
- Kazakhstan 1
- Lebanon 1
- Liberia 1
- Mongolia 1
- Russia (Chechnya) 1
- Senegal 1
- Turkey 1
- Ukraine 1
- United Kingdom 1
