EDAL case summaries
Country of Applicant: Algeria, Morocco
Keywords: Cessation of protection, Circumstances ceased to exist, Country of origin, Personal circumstances of applicant, Protection, Relevant Facts, Revocation of protection status, Stateless person, Subsidiary Protection, Well-founded fear
Member States are required to revoke subsidiary protection on the basis of art. 19(1), if they find out that the conditions that led to the granting of status were never met, regardless of whether the incorrect assessment of facts leading to the status is imputable exclusively to the national authority itself
Date: 23-05-2019
Country of Decision: Slovenia
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Circumstances ceased to exist, Effective remedy (right to), Non-refoulement, Relevant Facts, Subsidiary Protection
Termination of an applicant’s international protection status (ie where there is a change or termination of protection grounds) must be examined against the principle of non-refoulement, which ensures the right to a fair and efficient procedure in which the Asylum authority assesses if non-refoulement would be violated where protection ceases.
It results from the principle of non-refoulement that the applicant in proceedings on termination of subsidiary protection must have the possibility to state all the reasons for which subsidiary protection should not cease.
In the...
Date: 15-10-2015
Country of Decision: Slovenia
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Circumstances ceased to exist, Country of origin information, Indiscriminate violence, Relevant Documentation, Relevant Facts, Serious harm, Subsidiary Protection
By not considering country information submitted by the applicant, the Slovenian Migration Office did not establish all relevant facts and circumstances of the case before it. The Office had not clearly and precisely explained which reasons it considered as decisive in determining that the degree of indiscriminate violence in the applicant’s country of origin did not reach such a level that the applicant would be subjected to a serious and individual threat to his life or person in the event of return to his country of origin.
Date: 10-04-2014
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Togo
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN, Circumstances ceased to exist, Duty of applicant, Previous persecution, Real risk, Refugee Status, Relevant Facts, Standard of proof
1. Changes in the home country are only considered to be sufficiently significant and non-temporary if the refugee’s fear of persecution can no longer be regarded as well-founded.
2. Based on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) which applies to the concept of “real risk” according to Article 3 ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights), a uniform standardof probability is applied to assessing the likelihood of persecution in the context of refugee protection; this corresponds to the standard of substantial probability.
Date: 01-03-2012
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Circumstances ceased to exist filterCircumstances ceased to exist
- (-) Remove Relevant Facts filterRelevant Facts
- Subsidiary Protection 3
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 2
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 1
- Cessation of protection 1
- Country of origin 1
- Country of origin information 1
- Duty of applicant 1
- Effective remedy (right to) 1
- Indiscriminate violence 1
- Non-refoulement 1
- Personal circumstances of applicant 1
- Previous persecution 1
- Protection 1
- Real risk 1
- Refugee Status 1
- Relevant Documentation 1
- Revocation of protection status 1
- Serious harm 1
- Standard of proof 1
- Stateless person 1
- Well-founded fear 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 2
- Algeria 1
- Morocco 1
- Togo 1
