EDAL case summaries
In cases of reasonable suspicion that a person applying for asylum was a victim of human trafficking, the Swiss State Secretary for Migration is obliged to clarify the facts thoroughly on its own initiative.
The right to be heard prior to the adoption of a return decision, implies that the administrative authority places the foreign national in a position to present, in a useful and effective manner, his point of view on the illegality of his residency and the motives which will be likely to justify the authorities abstaining from taking a return decision.
It does not, however, imply that the administration has the obligation to put the interested person in a position to present his...
When assessing the application for international protection the Ministry of Interior (MI) did not take into account the Applicant’s youth, lack of education and background. The MI did not conduct the procedure and pose questions in a manner that was suitable to the Applicant’s age and personality.
The country of origin information that the Applicant submitted only in his appeal against the decision should be accepted as this is generally available information that MI could have obtained on its own.
The age of the child and the mental state of the Applicant as well as the ban on more detailed questioning on the reasons for fleeing in the initial police interview should have been taken into account to a greater extent when assessing the assertion of flight. The lack of discussion of these aspects represents a failure to investigate several decisive points, which made the decision by the Asylum Court arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional
Traumatised people and those who have suffered otherwise psychologically and physically from flight behave differently when giving evidence compared with healthy people. This can mean that the full submissions relevant to asylum are not provided at the start of the proceedings or the traumatisation itself is not mentioned. These circumstances are to be taken into account during the ban on new evidence.
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Personal circumstances of applicant filterPersonal circumstances of applicant
- (-) Remove Personal interview filterPersonal interview
- Credibility assessment 3
- Child Specific Considerations 2
- Country of origin information 2
- Duty of applicant 2
- Procedural guarantees 2
- Benefit of doubt 1
- Burden of proof 1
- Country of origin 1
- Dublin Transfer 1
- Gender Based Persecution 1
- Individual assessment 1
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 1
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 1
- Relevant Facts 1
- Residence document 1
- Return 1
- Standard of proof 1
- Subsidiary Protection 1
- Trafficking in human beings 1
- Unaccompanied minor 1
- Vulnerable person 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 2
- Nigeria 1
- Russia 1
Filter by country of decision
- Austria 2
- France 1
- Slovenia 1
- Switzerland 1