You are here
Home › Standard of proof ›EDAL case summaries
The Appellant and the appellant’s children were applying for leave to remain in Sweden due to affiliation with their husband and father respectively who had been granted a permanent right of residency in Sweden as a refugee - despite them not being able to prove their identities. Due to the appellant’s lack of relevant documentation for her and the children, the court had to consider the circumstances in which a person can be granted alleviation of evidentiary burden in terms of proving their identity.
The Migration Court of Appeal granted the appeal and held that...
Effective access to justice relies on an individual having a voice in the proceedings concerning him or her. Solely focusing on the credibility of the appellant’s account and not having regard to objective evidence testifying to the appellant’s vulnerability or the risk to the appellant of return to Afghanistan has led to the proceedings being neither fair nor just. A material error of law has therefore been committed.
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...
The application of S.C. and her minor children Z.C. and F.C. related to the cassation of an Appeal Court judgement regarding compensation for the harm they suffered as a result of an indisputably unjust decision to place the Applicants in a Guarded Detention Centre for Foreigners. The Supreme Court reversed the challenged judgement and passed the case to the Appeal Court for re-consideration.
The return of the applicants to Iraq violates Article 3 ECHR as there is a real risk of ill-treatment based on their personal circumstances as a targeted group and the Iraqi authorities’ diminished ability to protect them.
The Slovenian legislature has not fulfilled its obligations under the provisions of Article 2(n) of the Dublin Regulation. The possibility of an analogous application of Article 68 of the Aliens Act-2 has a very weak basis in terms of the objective criteria required. It can only be sufficient in a particular case if in light of the specific circumstances of the case there is no doubt about the existence of the risk of absconding.
The Applicant and the Applicant’s children were applying for leave to remain in Sweden due to affiliation with their husband and father respectively who had permanent residency in Sweden. The Applicant and the Applicant’s children were all granted evidentiary relief regarding their identities. Further, one of the Applicant’s children, a 20 year old daughter, was deemed to fulfil the criteria for household community and special dependency. The Applicant and all of the Applicant’s children were granted leave to remain.
The case concerns three unconnected Iranian nationals who unsuccessfully claimed asylum in the Republic of Cyprus then came to the UK where they made asylum claims. A further right to appeal remained with the Cypriot Supreme Court. The case is a challenge by the applicants to the SSHD’s refusal to decide their asylum claims substantively; certification of their asylum claims on safe third country grounds; and certification of their human rights claims as clearly unfounded.
The Court concluded that there was no real risk that the...
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.
General situation in the country of origin, however difficult, does not justify granting refugee status, if there is no or only some small risk of persecutions (such risk can never be actually eliminated). However the authority is obliged to individually assess the situation of a particular applicant. This is not possible without careful examination of all the letters submitted by the applicant during the proceedings before the first and the second instance. Failure to do this cannot be validated by the Court by determining the facts on its own, since it would lead to de facto ...
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Standard of proof filterStandard of proof
- Credibility assessment 21
- Previous persecution 17
- Burden of proof 16
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 15
- Internal protection 15
- Subsidiary Protection 14
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 13
- Individual assessment 12
- Real risk 12
- Well-founded fear 12
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 10
- Country of origin information 9
- Exclusion from protection 9
- Membership of a particular social group 9
- Persecution (acts of) 9
- Benefit of doubt 8
- Individual threat 8
- Refugee Status 8
- Relevant Documentation 8
- Serious harm 8
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 7
- Child Specific Considerations 7
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 7
- Personal circumstances of applicant 7
- Procedural guarantees 7
- Relevant Facts 7
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 6
- Torture 6
- Unaccompanied minor 6
- Duty of applicant 5
- Non-refoulement 5
- Religion 5
- Revocation of protection status 5
- Circumstances ceased to exist 4
- Crime against humanity 4
- Detention 4
- Dublin Transfer 4
- Effective access to procedures 4
- Effective remedy (right to) 4
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 4
- Obligation to give reasons 4
- Protection 4
- Race 4
- Sexual orientation 4
- Subsequent application 4
- Terrorism 4
- Actors of protection 3
- Family unity (right to) 3
- Gender Based Persecution 3
- Internal armed conflict 3
- Reception conditions 3
- Safe third country 3
- Serious non-political crime 3
- Vulnerable person 3
- War crimes 3
- Accelerated procedure 2
- Best interest of the child 2
- Delay 2
- Dependant (Dependent person) 2
- Discrimination 2
- Family member 2
- Health (right to) 2
- Indiscriminate violence 2
- Political Opinion 2
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 2
- Access to the labour market 1
- Accommodation centre 1
- Armed conflict 1
- Country of origin 1
- Family reunification 1
- Final decision 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Humanitarian considerations 1
- International armed conflict 1
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 1
- Manifestly unfounded application 1
- Material reception conditions 1
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 1
- Personal interview 1
- Refugee sur place 1
- Request to take back 1
- Return 1
- Temporary protection 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Russia 12
- Afghanistan 10
- Iraq 7
- Turkey 6
- Pakistan 4
- Russia (Chechnya) 4
- Iran 3
- Nigeria 3
- Rwanda 2
- Somalia 2
- Sri Lanka 2
- Sudan 2
- Uganda 2
- Albania 1
- Belarus 1
- Cameroon 1
- China 1
- China (Tibet) 1
- Colombia 1
- Congo (DRC) 1
- Cuba 1
- Egypt 1
- Eritrea 1
- Ghana 1
- Guinea 1
- Ivory Coast 1
- Syria 1
- Togo 1
- Tunisia 1
- Ukraine 1
- Unknown 1