EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Congo (Republic of)
Keywords: Country of origin, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Real risk, Refugee Status, Return, Subsidiary Protection
The French National Court on Asylum has made an error of law by refusing to grant at the very least subsidiary protection to the applicant following his new request to re-examine his situation, despite a condemnation from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) for the violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Date: 03-10-2018
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Pakistan
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Best interest of the child, Child Specific Considerations, Family member, Refugee Status, Relevant Facts, Return
Following the careful examination of International, European and domestic law, the Court concluded that the grant of refugee status supersedes any order made by a Family Court (regarding the return of the child to Pakistan), because it is the Secretary of State for the Home Department that is the entrusted public authority to deal with asylum matters. However, were the Family Court to discover new facts, the relevant public authority would be responsible, in principle, under the tenets of UK Administrative Law to review their decision.
Date: 26-04-2017
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: Greece
Country of Applicant: Palestinian Territory, Syria
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Cessation of protection, Country of former habitual residence, Country of origin, Country of origin information, Dependant (Dependent person), Exclusion from protection, First country of asylum, Individual assessment, Manifestly unfounded application, Protection, Refugee Status, Return, Safe country of origin, Well-founded fear
The appellant sought to have the decision of the Secretary General of the Ministry of Public Order annulled, under which her previous application for her and her son to be recognised as refugees had been rejected. The Hellenic Council of State rejected the current appeal, due to the fact that the appellant had invoked financial reasons for leaving Syria and as such, had no legal basis to be recognised as a refugee.
Date: 16-12-2014
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: Afghanistan
Keywords: Country of origin, Credibility assessment, Final decision, Individual threat, Non-refoulement, Persecution (acts of), Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Personal circumstances of applicant, Protection, Real risk, Refugee Status, Return, Subsidiary Protection, Well-founded fear
An application for international protection lodged by an Afghan who illegally entered Austria was rejected. The Court found that the applicant had no well-founded fear of persecution in his country of origin nor was he to be granted the subsidiary protection status.
Date: 29-11-2013
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan, Jordan
Keywords: Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Procedural guarantees, Refugee Status, Return
The case concerns a recognised as a refugee in the United Kingdom, who was to be deported in the interests of national security to Jordan. The UK Government obtained assurances from Jordan that he would not be subjected to ill-treatment and would be tried fairly by the Jordanian State Security Court. However the applicant alleged that, if deported to Jordan, he would be at real risk of ill-treatment and an unfair trial.
Date: 09-05-2012
Country of Applicant: Turkey
Keywords: Effective remedy (right to), Family unity (right to), Refugee Status, Return
The case concerns the expulsion of a refugee on the grounds of national security, under an order that did not set out reasons and resulted in violations of Art. 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 of the ECHR.
Date: 15-09-2011
Country of Applicant: Algeria, France, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia
Keywords: Country of origin, Detention, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Real risk, Refugee Status, Return, Safe country of origin, Terrorism
The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 5 para 1 (f), 4 and 5 with regards to some of the eleven applicants in this case, who were detained as suspected terrorists by UK authorities.
Date: 19-02-2009
Country of Applicant: Eritrea
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Procedural guarantees, Refugee Status, Return
The case concerns access to a remedy with suspensive effect by an asylum seeker, who claimed asylum at the French border, against a potential removal from France to a country where there is real reason to believe he would face the risk of being subjected to ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR.
Date: 26-04-2007
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Refugee Status filterRefugee Status
- (-) Remove Return filterReturn
- Effective remedy (right to) 6
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 5
- Country of origin 4
- Detention 4
- Real risk 4
- Effective access to procedures 3
- Procedural guarantees 3
- Subsidiary Protection 3
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 2
- Final decision 2
- Persecution (acts of) 2
- Protection 2
- Safe country of origin 2
- Well-founded fear 2
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 1
- Best interest of the child 1
- Cessation of protection 1
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Country of former habitual residence 1
- Country of origin information 1
- Credibility assessment 1
- Dependant (Dependent person) 1
- Dublin Transfer 1
- Exclusion from protection 1
- Family member 1
- Family reunification 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Individual assessment 1
- Individual threat 1
- Manifestly unfounded application 1
- Material reception conditions 1
- Non-refoulement 1
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 1
- Personal circumstances of applicant 1
- Personal interview 1
- Relevant Facts 1
- Terrorism 1
- Torture 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 2
- Jordan 2
- Somalia 2
- Algeria 1
- Congo (Republic of) 1
- Eritrea 1
- France 1
- India 1
- Morocco 1
- Pakistan 1
- Palestinian Territory 1
- Syria 1
- Tunisia 1
- Turkey 1
- United Kingdom 1
Filter by country of decision
- Austria 1
- France 1
- Greece 1
- United Kingdom 1
