EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: Spain
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Accommodation centre, Credibility assessment, Internal armed conflict, Refugee Status, Relevant Documentation, Subsidiary Protection
When addressing asylum claims, refugee status must be recognised when there is a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the reasons foreseen in the 1951 Refugee Convention. Assessment of an asylum request fundamentally needs careful consideration of the facts and personal circumstances of the asylum seeker, as well as an analysis of the nature of the risk. The criteria of this test does not have to be restrictive, it is sufficient that the competent authority has a rational belief that the requirements are met for the purpose of receiving refugee status.
Date: 15-12-2015
Country of Applicant: Iraq
Keywords: Detention, Effective remedy (right to), Health (right to), Material reception conditions, Reception conditions, Refugee Status
The ECtHR recognised a breach of Article 3 ECHR in respect of the conditions at a Greek detention centre, and a breach of Article 3 in conjunction with Article 13 in respect of failures by the Greek authorities in the processing of the Applicant’s claim. However, his rights under Article 5 had not been breached because the detention was prescribed by law and served a legitimate purpose.
Date: 05-11-2015
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: Syria
Keywords: Armed conflict, Country of origin information, Detention, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict, Protection, Real risk, Refugee Status, Serious harm, Well-founded fear
The applicants, a stateless Palestinian from Syria and two Syrian nationals, had been ordered to be expelled to Syria by the Russian authorities, and were detained in a detention centre in Russia pending this. The Court found that their expulsion to Syria would breach Articles 2 and 3, that Articles 5(4) and 5(1)(f) had been violated with regards to their detention, and that the restrictions on their contact with their representatives had breached Article 34.
Date: 15-10-2015
Country of Decision: Greece
Country of Applicant: Bangladesh
Keywords: Personal interview, Refugee Status, Relevant Documentation, Safe third country, Well-founded fear
The applicant did not have the possibility to have his allegations (which also supported his subsequent application) duly taken into consideration. His written answers to the questions asked by the administrative authorities on his subsequent application were not documented with precision. His allegations need to be examined and evaluated further.
Date: 24-09-2015
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: Ireland
Country of Applicant: Congo (DRC)
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Best interest of the child, Child Specific Considerations, Country of origin information, Credibility assessment, Individual assessment, Membership of a particular social group, Obligation to give reasons, Refugee Status
This case examined the denial of a minor’s application for asylum which was decided primarily on the failure of his mother’s application. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal did not consider Country of Origin Information (COI) from the child’s perspective. Furthermore, clear reasons were not given for the refusal decision. The High Court granted leave and quashed the Refugee Appeals Tribunals decision to deny refugee status to the child. The Court also held that the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration of the Tribunal both with regard to the procedure and substantive...
Date: 17-09-2015
Country of Decision: Poland
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Refugee Status, Subsequent application, Subsidiary Protection
The Court ruled that when deciding whether the subsequent application is admissible, new facts regarding the individual situation of the applicant or her situation in the country of origin as well as change in the situation of the country of origin alone are significant. When examining whether the grounds of the first and the subsequent application are the same, the essence of the facts is important, not the manner in which they are presented.
With regard to the applicant’s argument that in the present case the legal grounds for granting subsidiary protection were not examined, the...
Date: 07-09-2015
Country of Decision: Slovenia
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN, Armed conflict, Crime against humanity, International armed conflict, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Political Opinion, Refugee Status, War crimes
The assigned political belief of an individual, his desertion or avoiding being drafted in the army are sufficient to grant a refugee status to an individual, if there is a connection between the reasons for persecution and the acts of persecution in line with Article 1.A of the Geneva Convention 1951 in a situation of an armed conflict.
Date: 02-09-2015
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Assessment of facts and circumstances, Country of origin information, Credibility assessment, Individual assessment, Internal protection, Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Membership of a particular social group, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Previous persecution, Real risk, Refugee Status, Subsidiary Protection, Well-founded fear
If an appellant provides substantiated reasons that call into question the consideration of evidence in the administrative proceedings, the facts cannot be regarded as “well established on basis of the records in combination with the complaint”. Thus, an oral hearing has to be held. The same applies if there is a necessity to consider up-to-date country of origin information as well as an up-to-date medical report due to the long duration of the judicial proceedings.
In the opinion of the court, the absence of a legal representative in the oral hearing, in spite of an explicit...
Date: 24-08-2015
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Refugee Status filterRefugee Status
- Detention 13
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 12
- Well-founded fear 9
- Effective remedy (right to) 8
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 8
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 7
- Reception conditions 7
- Subsidiary Protection 7
- Country of origin information 6
- Persecution (acts of) 6
- Credibility assessment 5
- Effective access to procedures 5
- Individual assessment 5
- Material reception conditions 5
- Real risk 5
- Country of origin 4
- Health (right to) 4
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 4
- Political Opinion 4
- Race 4
- Accommodation centre 3
- Dublin Transfer 3
- Membership of a particular social group 3
- Obligation to give reasons 3
- Personal circumstances of applicant 3
- Previous persecution 3
- Relevant Documentation 3
- Serious harm 3
- Torture 3
- Access to the labour market 2
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 2
- Armed conflict 2
- Best interest of the child 2
- Burden of proof 2
- Delay 2
- Discrimination 2
- Family unity (right to) 2
- Inadmissible application 2
- Internal armed conflict 2
- Internal protection 2
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 2
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 2
- Procedural guarantees 2
- Protection 2
- Responsibility for examining application 2
- Return 2
- Revocation of protection status 2
- Safe third country 2
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Actors of protection 1
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 1
- Benefit of doubt 1
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Crime against humanity 1
- Education (right to) 1
- Exclusion from protection 1
- Final decision 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Indiscriminate violence 1
- Integration measures 1
- International armed conflict 1
- Non-refoulement 1
- Personal interview 1
- Relevant Facts 1
- Request to take back 1
- Safe country of origin 1
- Sexual orientation 1
- Subsequent application 1
- Unaccompanied minor 1
- War crimes 1
Filter by date
- (-) Remove 2015 filter2015
- September 2015 5
- October 2015 2
- November 2015 1
- May 2015 2
- March 2015 2
- June 2015 4
- July 2015 1
- January 2015 3
- February 2015 4
- December 2015 1
- August 2015 1
- April 2015 7
Filter by country of applicant
- Syria 5
- Afghanistan 4
- Somalia 4
- Turkey 3
- Iran 2
- Kyrgyzstan 2
- Sudan 2
- Albania 1
- Bangladesh 1
- China 1
- Congo (DRC) 1
- Egypt 1
- Ethiopia 1
- India 1
- Iraq 1
- Ivory Coast 1
- Lebanon 1
- Liberia 1
- Nepal 1
- Nigeria 1
- Pakistan 1
- Russia 1
- Sri Lanka 1
