EDAL case summaries
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....
This case primarily dealt with the lawfulness of a prolonged period of detention in the context of whether there was a reasonable prospect of deportation and also of evidence of both current mental illness and previous torture and trafficking.
The French National Asylum Court (CNDA) must do a complete assessment of facts and circumstances in deciding whether an applicant should be granted refugee status, or failing that, subsidiary protection. In doing so, it must take into account all the documentation provided by the Applicant in support of the application. In this case, the Applicant’s medical evidence documentation and the evidence relating to the potential risks she is likely to face if she returns to her country (fear of persecution due to imputed political opinions) should have been taken into account.
The CNDA did...
This case dealt with the issue of whether the Secretary of State’s certification of the asylum claims of the two independent applicants as “clearly unfounded” was flawed on public law grounds, and the important difference between a decision on refugee status itself and a decision on a claim being “clearly unfounded”.
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...
The French National Asylum Court (the “CNDA”) must assess whether or not the applicant should be granted refugee status or, failing that, subsidiary protection,taking into account all the factual on the basis of the circumstances which are known to the CNDA when it rules. In order to assess the accuracy of the facts reported by an applicant, the CNDA must take into account all evidence presented by an applicant in support of his application. In particular, when an applicant produces circumstantial evidence relating to the alleged risks that he is likely to face if...
The Court found that there would be no violation of Article 3 in the event of return of the applicant, who suffered from chronic kidney failure and was in need of dialysis three times per week, to Kyrgyzstan.
The applicant challenged by way of judicial review the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (hereinafter RAT) (adverse credibility findings) on the grounds that it failed to have reasonable regard to the documents submitted. The Court held that the Tribunal failed to provide reasons rejecting a medico-legal report and further held that the Tribunal’s analysis of documentary evidence supportive of ethnicity submitted was wrong in fact. The Court quashed the decision of the Tribunal.
The case examined the allegations of three applicants of Chechen origin that their deportation to Russia would place them in conditions amounting to inhumane and degrading treatment. Their allegations were based on the general situation of Chechens in Russia as well as on an individual risk of the first applicant because of his documentary work, recording the execution of villagers by the Russian federal troops.
The Court found that the deportation of the applicants to Russia would give rise to a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment)...
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports filterMedical Reports/Medico-legal Reports
- (-) Remove Refugee Status filterRefugee Status
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 8
- Real risk 7
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 6
- Well-founded fear 6
- Country of origin information 5
- Credibility assessment 5
- Membership of a particular social group 5
- Torture 5
- Individual assessment 4
- Country of origin 3
- Internal protection 3
- Procedural guarantees 3
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 2
- Best interest of the child 2
- Child Specific Considerations 2
- Detention 2
- Effective remedy (right to) 2
- Individual threat 2
- Manifestly unfounded application 2
- Non-refoulement 2
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 2
- Personal circumstances of applicant 2
- Personal interview 2
- Political Opinion 2
- Protection 2
- Relevant Documentation 2
- Safe country of origin 2
- Serious harm 2
- Subsidiary Protection 2
- Vulnerable person 2
- Dublin Transfer 1
- Duty of applicant 1
- Female genital mutilation 1
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 1
- Obligation to give reasons 1
- Persecution (acts of) 1
- Previous persecution 1
- Race 1
- Request to take back 1
- Responsibility for examining application 1
- Sexual orientation 1
- Subsequent application 1
- Trafficking in human beings 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Russia (Chechnya) 2
- Sri Lanka 2
- Albania 1
- Cameroon 1
- Ethiopia 1
- Iran 1
- Kyrgyzstan 1
- Morocco 1
- Russia 1
- Rwanda 1
- Sierra Leone 1
- Somalia 1
- Tanzania 1
- Unknown 1
Filter by country of decision
- France 2
- Poland 2
- United Kingdom 2
- Austria 1
- Greece 1
- Ireland 1
- Switzerland 1