EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Country of origin information, Final decision, Individual assessment, Membership of a particular social group, Obligation to give reasons, Sexual orientation, Subsequent application
This case involved a violation of the right to equal treatment of foreigners as a result of a rejection of the application for international protection and expulsion of the homosexual Applicant to Nigeria because of a failure by the decision-maker to make its own country determinations and to thoroughly examine the situation of homosexuals in Nigeria.
Date: 16-09-2013
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Membership of a particular social group, Obligation to give reasons, Procedural guarantees, Trafficking in human beings
The Council of State ruled that non-governmental organisations who, by way of their statutory objects and their actions, can prove a sufficient interest in relation to the subject-matter of the proceedings, can make an application before the CNDA on the terms set out by the Council of State.
In this case, the Council of State held that the CNDA had made an error of law in ruling that Nigerian women who were victims of human trafficking networks and who had actively sought to escape the network constituted a social group within the meaning of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Date: 25-07-2013
Country of Decision: Italy
Country of Applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Actors of protection, Female genital mutilation, Gender Based Persecution, Membership of a particular social group, Refugee Status
Female genital mutilation constitutes an act of persecution relating to membership of a particular social group and, if it is established that such mutilation could specifically affect the Applicant, constitutes a reason for granting refugee status under Article 2 and subsequent articles of Legislative Decree No 251 of 19.11.2007, implementing Directive 2004/83/EC.
Date: 03-04-2013
Country of Decision: Italy
Country of Applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Duty of applicant, Effective remedy (right to), More favourable provisions
The legal proceedings relating to an appeal regarding the granting of international protection are a summary process that give the judge certain official powers. As a consequence, the judge should decide on the merits of an appeal even if the Applicant fails to attend the hearing.
Date: 20-03-2013
Country of Decision: Italy
Country of Applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Indiscriminate violence, Serious harm, Subsidiary Protection
Granting subsidiary protection is not dependent on the personal situation of the Applicant and relates to a generalised situation of serious risk in the country of origin, a situation that could commence even after the Applicant has left his country of origin. In the case in point, the indiscriminate violence throughout Nigeria fulfils the conditions required for granting subsidiary protection.
Date: 19-03-2013
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Detention, Dublin Transfer, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application, Subsequent application
Foreigners who have lodged an application for international protection cannot be taken into detention pending deportation as a person remaining in the country unlawfully.
If a more recent application for international protection has been lodged in the transfer country, then the Applicant will again be assigned the status of an asylum seeker in accordance with the Dublin II Regulation. The (re-)receiving country must undertake an examination of the application for asylum made in another Member State, even if it is a “subsequent application”.
Date: 19-03-2013
Country of Decision: Italy
Country of Applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Non-refoulement
When acting against expulsion on the basis of the ban on expulsion contained in Article 19(1) of Legislative Decree No 286 of 1998, a Justice of the Peace is obliged to establish, under the duty of investigation to which he is subject and which is equivalent to a judge in international protection matters, any circumstances that were not made available to the Territorial Commission because the Applicant was unable to present or disclose them and the Commission was unable to establish them.
Date: 25-02-2013
Country of Applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Effective remedy (right to), Nationality, Procedural guarantees
This case concerns Art. 23 of Directive 2005/85/EC and the possibility of prioritising the processing of asylum applications by persons belonging to a certain category defined on the basis of nationality or country of origin. The case also deals with the right to an effective judicial remedy under Art. 39 of Directive 2005/85/EC and the concept of ‘court or Tribunal’ within the meaning of that article.
Date: 31-01-2013
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 3
- Membership of a particular social group 3
- Effective remedy (right to) 2
- Obligation to give reasons 2
- Procedural guarantees 2
- Subsequent application 2
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 1
- Actors of protection 1
- Country of origin information 1
- Detention 1
- Dublin Transfer 1
- Duty of applicant 1
- Effective access to procedures 1
- Female genital mutilation 1
- Final decision 1
- Gender Based Persecution 1
- Indiscriminate violence 1
- Individual assessment 1
- More favourable provisions 1
- Nationality 1
- Non-refoulement 1
- Refugee Status 1
- Request to take back 1
- Responsibility for examining application 1
- Serious harm 1
- Sexual orientation 1
- Subsidiary Protection 1
- Trafficking in human beings 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- (-) Remove Nigeria filterNigeria
