You are here

Home › Relevant Facts › 2010 ›

EDAL case summaries

Belgium – Council of State, 31 October 2010, Nr. 164.283

Country of Decision: Belgium
Country of Applicant: Iran
Keywords: Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Political Opinion, Discrimination, Persecution (acts of), Relevant Facts
This case confirmed that discriminatory treatment can amount to persecution in certain circumstances. The Council of State ruled that problems of discrimination cannot be automatically dismissed as insufficiently weighty to amount to persecution. Discrimination can have such severe consequences that it falls within the scope of the Refugee Convention.
Date: 31-10-2010

Czech Republic - Supreme Administrative Court, 17 September 2010, M.Y. v. Ministry of Interior, 2 Azs 14/2010-92

Country of Decision: Czech Republic
Country of Applicant: Unknown
Keywords: Inadmissible application, Non-refoulement, Personal circumstances of applicant, Relevant Facts, Subsequent application

The case concerned a subsequent application for international protection based on the right to a family and private life (Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) The application was rejected as inadmissible by the Ministry of Interior (MOI) on the basis that Art 8 considerations were deemed not applicable in asylum cases. However, the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) made two important findings. Firstly it held that even if an application was considered to be inadmissible, there was an obligation to evaluate the risk of refoulement under Art 33 of 1951 Refugee...
Date: 17-09-2010

Spain - Supreme Court, 19 February 2010, 5051/2006

Country of Decision: Spain
Country of Applicant: Colombia
Keywords: Actors of protection, Burden of proof, Internal protection, Relevant Facts

The case concerned an appeal submitted before the Supreme Court against the decision of the High National Court to refuse refugee status on the grounds that it was not established that the persecution alleged against the applicants was individually and personally targeted. The Supreme Court found that the High National Court erred in requiring a higher standard of proof than what was needed. The High National Court had required the applicant to demonstrate ‘conclusive evidence’ (“full evidence”) of persecution, however, a lower standard of evidence was required by the law.
Date: 19-02-2010

Filter by case summary type

Filter by applicable legal provisions

Filter by country of applicant

Filter by country of decision