EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: Ireland
Country of Applicant: Congo (DRC)
Keywords: Individual assessment, Credibility assessment, Previous persecution, Actor of persecution or serious harm, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Protection, Refugee sur place, Subsidiary Protection, Individual threat, Political Opinion, Serious harm, Non-refoulement, Procedural guarantees
This case concerned the assessment and reason given that the Applicant had not been subjected to “serious harm” in the past, in circumstances where the decision was unclear as to whether the finding was to the effect that his account was not believed, or whether, if believed, the harm was not inflicted by persons who were "actors of serious harm". The Court also considered the definition of “actors of serious harm.” Thirdly, the Court considered whether the decision-maker ignored the specific claim made in the application that returned asylum seekers face a risk of detention,...
Date: 25-06-2012
Country of Decision: Ireland
Country of Applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Previous persecution, Actor of persecution or serious harm, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Protection, Subsidiary Protection, Gender Based Persecution, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Serious harm, Torture, More favourable provisions
This was the substantive hearing of a case in which leave to seek judicial review of a subsidiary protection decision was granted on the basis that (a) it was arguably erroneous to conclude that because State protection was available in respect of the actions of non-State agents who inflicted serious injury on the Applicant, the said injury could not amount to "serious harm;" and (b) The decision failed to consider whether, arising out of the previous harm suffered by the Applicant, compelling reasons existed to warrant a determination that she was eligible for subsidiary protection. The...
Date: 01-03-2012
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Iraq
Keywords: Subsidiary Protection, Serious harm, Individual threat, Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict, Circumstances ceased to exist, Previous persecution, Standard of proof
Even if it is assumed that an internal armed conflict is taking place, a serious individual risk can only be established if the degree of indiscriminate violence which is characteristic of the conflict has reached such a high level that any civilian is at risk of a serious individual threat simply by his or her presence in the region.
The suicide attacks and bombings typical of Iraq and also of the hometown of the applicants can be classified as acts of indiscriminate violence. However, a density of danger as it is necessary for the assumption of a serious and individual risk cannot...
Date: 29-10-2010
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Turkey
Keywords: Subsidiary Protection, Serious harm, Torture, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Exclusion from protection, Previous persecution, Revocation of protection status, Standard of proof
The facilitated standard of proof under Art. 4.4 of the Qualification Directive may be applied to the examination of subsidiary protection. Under German law, subsidiary protection is not excluded on the ground that the applicant is a “danger to the community”.
Date: 07-09-2010
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Russia, Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: Subsidiary Protection, Serious harm, Individual threat, Indiscriminate violence, Internal protection, Previous persecution
“Good reasons,” as defined in Art 4.4 of the Qualification Directive exist if a recurrence of past persecution is not expected and there is no enhanced risk of first-time persecution of a similar kind. At present, there are “good reasons” to consider persecution of Chechens who return to Chechnya, unless they belong to a particular risk group, will not be repeated.
Date: 27-11-2009
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Sri Lanka
Keywords: Serious harm, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Previous persecution
The court gave guidance for assessing whether the risk of suicide on removal would engage Art 3 of the European Convention on Human rights.
Date: 24-05-2005
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Previous persecution filterPrevious persecution
- (-) Remove Serious harm filterSerious harm
- Subsidiary Protection 5
- Individual threat 3
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 3
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 2
- Indiscriminate violence 2
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 2
- Protection 2
- Standard of proof 2
- Torture 2
- Circumstances ceased to exist 1
- Credibility assessment 1
- Exclusion from protection 1
- Gender Based Persecution 1
- Individual assessment 1
- Internal armed conflict 1
- Internal protection 1
- More favourable provisions 1
- Non-refoulement 1
- Political Opinion 1
- Procedural guarantees 1
- Refugee sur place 1
- Revocation of protection status 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Congo (DRC) 1
- Iraq 1
- Nigeria 1
- Russia 1
- Russia (Chechnya) 1
- Sri Lanka 1
- Turkey 1
Filter by country of decision
- Germany 3
- Ireland 2
- United Kingdom 1
