EDAL case summaries
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Effective remedy (right to), Refugee Status, Subsidiary Protection
The CJEU ruled on whether an individual could appeal a decision which refused refugee status but granted subsidiary protection status, even if the rights and benefits afforded by each international protection status are identical in national law.
Date: 18-10-2018
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: More favourable provisions, Protection, Refugee Status, Subsidiary Protection
The Regional Administrative Court of Upper Austria requests a preliminary ruling of the CJEU concerning the interpretation of Article 29 Directive 2011/95/EU in the context of social assistance for persons entitled to asylum with a temporary residence permit.
1) Must Article 29 Directive 2011/95/EU, entitling persons subject to international protection to the same level of social assistance in the Member State as nationals of this Member State, be interpreted as fulfilling the conditions for direct effect as set out in the CJEU’s jurisprudence?
2) Must Article 29 Directive...
Date: 18-12-2017
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Actors of protection, Country of origin, Country of origin information, Internal protection, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Personal circumstances of applicant, Previous persecution, Refugee Status
1. Afghans who have worked for international aid organisations are particularly endangered of becoming victims of political persecution by non-state actors (e.g. Taliban) according to § 3 (1) AsylG in case of a return to Afghanistan.
2. There is no internal protection for these people. They cannot escape the clutches of non-state actors as these groups have a wide (information) network at their disposal and an increased interest in persons who have worked for international aid organisations.
Date: 26-06-2017
Country of Decision: Denmark
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Internal protection, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Refugee Status, Relevant Facts, Religion
The applicant, an ethnic Turkman and an atheist from Aache, Afghanistan had received death threats from local residents close to the imam as well as from his own father because of his apostasy.
The Refugee Appeals Board found that the applicant because of his apostacy would be at risk of being persecuted by local residents, Afghan authorities and the Taleban. Consequently, the applicant was granted refugee status under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1).
Date: 13-06-2017
Country of Decision: Ireland
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan, Nigeria
Keywords: Refugee Status
Analysing the legality of the refusal to grant child benefit payments to parents who are not habitually resident within the State for the benefit of their children.
Date: 17-01-2017
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: Afghanistan
Keywords: Detention, Effective remedy (right to), Inadmissible application, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Material reception conditions, Reception conditions, Refugee Status
The case examined the allegations of an Afghan national that his isolated living condition in the detention centre of Otopeni in Romania constituted inhumane treatment, in violation of article 3 of the Convention. He further alleged a violation of Article 5 para 4 with regards to his right to an effective remedy to challenge the effectiveness of his detention. In addition, he complained of an excessive time period in detention (more than a year).
Date: 10-05-2015
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 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
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
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Refugee Status filterRefugee Status
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 10
- Well-founded fear 8
- Membership of a particular social group 7
- Protection 7
- Subsidiary Protection 7
- Effective remedy (right to) 6
- Real risk 6
- Unaccompanied minor 6
- Child Specific Considerations 5
- Persecution (acts of) 5
- Credibility assessment 4
- Detention 4
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 4
- Internal protection 4
- Personal circumstances of applicant 4
- Reception conditions 4
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 3
- Country of origin 3
- Country of origin information 3
- Discrimination 3
- Dublin Transfer 3
- Individual assessment 3
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 3
- Obligation to give reasons 3
- Procedural guarantees 3
- Race 3
- Religion 3
- Standard of proof 3
- Actors of protection 2
- Best interest of the child 2
- Burden of proof 2
- Gender Based Persecution 2
- Inadmissible application 2
- Responsibility for examining application 2
- Return 2
- Access to the labour market 1
- Benefit of doubt 1
- Effective access to procedures 1
- Family member 1
- Final decision 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Indirect refoulement 1
- Individual threat 1
- Integration measures 1
- Material reception conditions 1
- More favourable provisions 1
- Non-refoulement 1
- Personal interview 1
- Political Opinion 1
- Previous persecution 1
- Refugee sur place 1
- Relevant Documentation 1
- Relevant Facts 1
- Request that charge be taken 1
- Request to take back 1
Filter by country of applicant
- (-) Remove Afghanistan filterAfghanistan
- Jordan 1
- Nigeria 1
