You are here

Home › Relevant Facts › First country of asylum ›

EDAL case summaries

Denmark - the Refugee Appeals Board’s decision of 15 February 2017

Country of Decision: Denmark
Country of Applicant: Lebanon
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, First country of asylum, Internal protection, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Real risk, Relevant Documentation, Relevant Facts, Religion, Well-founded fear

A Stateless Palestinian and Sunni Muslim from Lebanon, single woman, born and raised in Saudi Arabia who had a conflict with her family because she had had a relationship with a French Christian man and lost her virginity.

The Board found that seen in isolation as a Stateless Palestinian the applicant is covered by the Danish Aliens Act Art 7 (1).

The Board found that because the applicant had never resided in Lebanon, did not have any relation to that country, and due to her conflict with her family and based on country of origin information regarding entry options to Saudi...
Date: 15-02-2017

Netherlands - Court of The Hague, 3 December 2015, AWB 15/1712

Country of Decision: Netherlands
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN, Assessment of facts and circumstances, Country of origin, Crime against humanity, First country of asylum, Nationality, Obligation/Duty to cooperate, Personal circumstances of applicant, Relevant Facts, Serious non-political crime, War crimes, Well-founded fear

This case is concerned with whether the decision to deny the asylum application and the subsequently imposed entry ban were justified based on articles 1F(a)-(c). Under these provisions the Secretary of State can raise national security as a ‘serious ground’ for his decision if an element of ‘personal participation’ can be proven.
Date: 03-12-2015

Netherlands - Council of State Administrative Law Division, 26 November 2015, 201507248/1/V3

Country of Decision: Netherlands
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Country of origin, Country of origin information, Crime against humanity, Delay, Detention, Dublin Transfer, Effective remedy (right to), First country of asylum, Humanitarian considerations, Indirect refoulement, Nationality, Real risk, Relevant Documentation, Relevant Facts, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application, Return, Well-founded fear

This case is concerned with whether the Secretary of State for Justice has discharged or breached his duty of care with regards to the risk of refoulement in an asylum application.
Date: 26-11-2015

Germany - Administrative Court of Lueneburg, 16 December 2013, 6 B 64/13

Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Unknown
Keywords: Benefit of doubt, Burden of proof, Delay, Dublin Transfer, First country of asylum, Health (right to), Humanitarian considerations, Individual assessment, Personal circumstances of applicant, Relevant Facts, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Safe third country, Standard of proof, Temporary protection

The interest of an applicant to obtain a temporary stay from deportation to Italy for the time being predominates, if the applicant, in case of his return back to Italy, would be threatened with serious damage to his health due to inadequate accommodation opportunities there and because medical care would not be guaranteed due to a permanent overstretch of resources.
Date: 16-12-2013

Filter by case summary type

Filter by applicable legal provisions

Filter by date

Filter by country of applicant

Filter by country of decision