EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: Poland
Country of Applicant: Pakistan
Keywords: Burden of proof, Child Specific Considerations, Detention, Effective remedy (right to), Individual assessment, Manifestly unfounded application, Material reception conditions, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Reception conditions, Relevant Documentation, Relevant Facts, Standard of proof
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.
Date: 02-03-2017
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: Poland
Country of Applicant: Ukraine
Keywords: Individual assessment, Internal protection, Relevant Facts, Standard of proof
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 ...
Date: 13-08-2015
Country of Decision: Poland
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Family unity (right to), Relevant Facts, Standard of proof
The possibility of submitting evidence for assessment is a basic procedural guarantee. Thus, if the party’s argumentation is based on defined circumstances, essential for his/her case, the responsible authority should hear witnesses and get acquainted with the evidence gathered within asylum proceedings handled by relevant authorities in another EU Member State.
Date: 16-10-2014
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
Country of Decision: Poland
Country of Applicant: Uganda
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Membership of a particular social group, Relevant Facts, Sexual orientation, Standard of proof
The authorities of first and second instance—the Head of the Office for Foreigners and the Polish Council for Refugees—refused to grant refugee status or other forms of protection to an applicant from Uganda who had applied for refugee status because of his sexual orientation. They made the same decisions but on fundamentally different grounds and factual findings. The first instance authority found that the applicant was homosexual but that the information about the country of origin indicated that his fear was not well-founded. The second instance authority found that homosexuals are...
Date: 12-03-2012
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 Relevant Facts filterRelevant Facts
- (-) Remove Standard of proof filterStandard of proof
- Burden of proof 3
- Individual assessment 3
- Detention 2
- Duty of applicant 2
- Effective remedy (right to) 2
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 2
- Real risk 2
- Refugee Status 2
- Relevant Documentation 2
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 1
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 1
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 1
- Benefit of doubt 1
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Circumstances ceased to exist 1
- Credibility assessment 1
- Delay 1
- Dublin Transfer 1
- Effective access to procedures 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Humanitarian considerations 1
- Individual threat 1
- Internal protection 1
- Manifestly unfounded application 1
- Material reception conditions 1
- Membership of a particular social group 1
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 1
- Persecution (acts of) 1
- Personal circumstances of applicant 1
- Previous persecution 1
- Reception conditions 1
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 1
- Safe third country 1
- Sexual orientation 1
- Subsequent application 1
- Temporary protection 1
- Well-founded fear 1
