EDAL case summaries
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...
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.
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Relevant Facts filterRelevant Facts
- Actors of protection 1
- Burden of proof 1
- Discrimination 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- Internal protection 1
- Non-refoulement 1
- Persecution (acts of) 1
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 1
- Personal circumstances of applicant 1
- Political Opinion 1
- Subsequent application 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of decision
- Belgium 1
- Czech Republic 1
- Spain 1