EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: Switzerland
Country of Applicant: Eritrea
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, Credibility assessment, Duty of applicant, Obligation to give reasons, Personal interview, Relevant Documentation, Relevant Facts, Standard of proof, Unaccompanied minor
When deciding upon an asylum applicant’s age, authorities should assess the evidence in a holistic way, and not rely solely on medical examinations of the applicant. If, in the absence of sufficient evidence, authorities conclude that the applicant is an adult, they need to justify their decision by reference to the grounds for its conclusion.
Date: 04-03-2019
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Sri Lanka
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Benefit of doubt, Credibility assessment, Duty of applicant, Relevant Documentation, Standard of proof
The Tribunal reasserted the decision maker’s duty of confidentiality in considering documents produced in support of a protection claim. Where there is a needed to make an inquiry in the country of origin then written consent must be given by the applicant. Moreover, Article 22 of the Asylum Procedures Directive prohibits direct contact with the alleged actor of persecution. Additionally, the Refugee Convention requires that the authentication of a document is undertaken with a precautionary approach, namely whether an inquiry is necessary or should be framed in a specific manner and...
Date: 19-07-2017
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Burden of proof, Credibility assessment, Detention, Duty of applicant, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Individual threat, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Persecution (acts of), Real risk, Refugee Status, Relevant Documentation, Relevant Facts, Standard of proof, Subsequent application, Well-founded fear
The Court found a violation of Article 3 in relation to a subsequent application for asylum, which had been rejected on the basis that it contained no new elements indicating that the Applicants ran a real risk of being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment on deportation to Russia. Because new information had in fact been provided, the national authorities were under an obligation to thoroughly review the information in order to assure themselves that the Applicants’ rights under Article 3 would be safeguarded.
Date: 19-01-2016
Country of Decision: Belgium
Country of Applicant: Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, Duty of applicant, Relevant Documentation, Standard of proof
When it comes to establishing the facts of a case, the Office of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS) cannot limit itself to finding that the applicant has not provided any documentary evidence and that its own research was unsuccessful. This would give the false impression that in asylum matters documentary evidence is a primary or even a determining factor.
Date: 31-05-2010
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Duty of applicant filterDuty of applicant
- (-) Remove Relevant Documentation filterRelevant Documentation
- (-) Remove Standard of proof filterStandard of proof
- Burden of proof 3
- Credibility assessment 3
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 2
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 2
- Relevant Facts 2
- Benefit of doubt 1
- Detention 1
- Effective access to procedures 1
- Effective remedy (right to) 1
- Individual threat 1
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 1
- Obligation to give reasons 1
- Persecution (acts of) 1
- Personal interview 1
- Real risk 1
- Refugee Status 1
- Subsequent application 1
- Unaccompanied minor 1
- Well-founded fear 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Eritrea 1
- Russia 1
- Russia (Chechnya) 1
- Sri Lanka 1
Filter by country of decision
- Belgium 1
- Switzerland 1
- United Kingdom 1
