EDAL case summaries
The applicant’s asylum claim has been rejected on the grounds of Article 1F(c) of the 1951 Refugee Convention. The act he committed would amount to being contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN. However, the Council of State hereby decided that in failing to seek and qualify the severity of this act in the light of its effects internationally, the lower court made an error of law.
The case examined the allegations of the applicant that his proposed expulsion to Turkey would place him at risk of inhuman and degrading treatment and would jeopardize his physical and health integrity.
The Court found no violation of the articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and held the claimed violations of articles 6 and 8 to be unfounded.
In this judgement, the Court held that there was a violation of article 3 of the Convention concerning the detention conditions of the applicant at the premises of the executive subcommittee of the Thessaloniki foreign police. There was also a violation of article 5 para 1 (f) concerning the duration of his detention and para 4 with regards to the judicial review of his detention.
A Turkish National, who has been granted political asylum by the Swiss Government, was detained in Greece. After a decision made by the Greek authorities, his extradition to Turkey was ordered. This decision was quashed by the Greek Supreme Court.
The court ordered the Office of Immigration and Nationality to conduct new proceedings. The mere fact that national security risk factors arise vis-à-vis a person is not sufficient reason to exclude them from refugee or subsidiary protection status.
1. The issue as to whether an asylum-seeker was already protected against political persecution in a third country is only relevant in terms of the asylum application for recognition of refugee status in the context of the concept of the first country of asylum as defined in EU law in Article 29 of the Asylum Procedures Act (Articles 25 and 26 of the Asylum Procedures Directive).
2. If the Federal Office has reached a decision on the asylum application in this case, the substantive question of the subsidiarity of refugee protection in the assessment of refugee status is...
A recognised refugee may only be refused a residence document if there are serious grounds to consider that he is a danger to the security of the Federal Republic of Germany.
The question as to whether a refugee should be refused a residence document because he supports a terrorist organisation can only be determined following a comprehensive, specific verification of the activities of the organisation and the foreign national based on an overall evaluation by the trial judge (following the decision of 15 March 2005 – Federal Administrative Court 1 C 26.03 - Federal Administrative...
Germany - Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Administrative Court), 16 May 2012, 11 S 2328/11
1. The expulsion of a recognised refugee may only take place subject to the requirements of Article 21 (3) in conjunction with (2) and Article 24 (1) of the Qualification Directive.
2. Compelling grounds for public security or order according to Article 24 (1) of the Qualification Directive do not presuppose any outstanding acts of extraordinary danger in support of international terrorism; neither does specific involvement of a sympathiser suffice unless it is characterised by a large degree of continuity and as such shapes and influences the environment of the terrorist...
Where national authorities responsible for examining asylum applications breach the duty of confidentiality, this can of itself create conditions exposing an asylum seeker to persecution within the meaning of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
The General Secretary of the Ministry of Public Order, having had an application for asylum referred back to it, considered whether the submitted evidence was “new and crucial”. If so, an ab initio examination of the application would be ordered. Failure to give notification of an act does not affect its validity, but only the start of the deadline for submitting an application for its annulment. The copy of the Turkish Government Gazette which promulgated the decision regarding withdrawal of the Applicant's nationality, was new and crucial evidence. There was no justification...
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Refugee Status filterRefugee Status
- Well-founded fear 7
- Non-refoulement 6
- Detention 5
- Terrorism 5
- Political Opinion 4
- Protection 4
- Effective remedy (right to) 3
- Exclusion from protection 3
- Procedural guarantees 3
- Real risk 3
- Revocation of protection status 3
- Subsidiary Protection 3
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 2
- Family unity (right to) 2
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2
- Material reception conditions 2
- Obligation to give reasons 2
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 2
- Return 2
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 2
- Subsequent application 2
- Torture 2
- Access to the labour market 1
- Credibility assessment 1
- Dependant (Dependent person) 1
- Duty of applicant 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Humanitarian considerations 1
- Persecution (acts of) 1
- Reception conditions 1
- Relevant Documentation 1
- Residence document 1
- Safe country of origin 1
- Safe third country 1
- Serious harm 1
- Serious non-political crime 1
- Stateless person 1
Filter by country of applicant
- (-) Remove Turkey filterTurkey