EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: First country of asylum, Inadmissible application, Individual threat, Protection, Refugee Status, Well-founded fear
Interventions from third parties to proceedings initiated before the National Asylum Court may be admitted.
A person with refugee status in one European Union state who applies for refugee status in a second European Union state is presumed to have unfounded fears relating to lack of protection. However, that presumption may be rebutted by evidence to the contrary.
Date: 13-11-2013
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Indiscriminate violence, Individual threat, Internal armed conflict, Internal protection, Subsidiary Protection
The situation in Somalia, in particular in the South and Central regions, should be regarded as a situation of generalised violence resulting from an internal armed conflict.
Date: 30-08-2012
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Armenia
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Individual assessment, Individual threat, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Real risk, Subsidiary Protection
Article L. 712(1) (b) of the CESEDA requires the asylum judge to examine whether the circumstances allow the risks referred to in this provision to be regarded as proven. The protection provided for in this Article is only granted where there is a real, rather than possible, risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in the event of a return to the Applicant’s country of origin.
Date: 16-05-2012
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Kosovo, Serbia
Keywords: Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Subsidiary Protection, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Individual threat, Persecution (acts of)
Subsidiary protection was granted to a Roma of Serbian nationality who originated from Kosovo as the Court considered that he would currently face a risk of treatment contrary to human dignity in case of return to Serbia or to Kosovo.
Date: 02-11-2011
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Sri Lanka
Keywords: Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Political Opinion, Subsidiary Protection, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Individual threat, Indiscriminate violence
Since the situation of generalised violence which prevailed in Sri Lanka ended with the military defeat of LTTE combatants in May 2009, the only valid ground for claiming subsidiary protection would be Article L.712-1 b) Ceseda [which transposes Article 15 (b) of the Qualification Directive]. The applicant has to establish an individual risk of persecution or ill-treatment in case of return to his/her country of origin.
Date: 18-10-2011
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Subsidiary Protection, Individual threat, Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict
The situation which prevails today in some geographical areas of Somalia, in particular in and around Mogadishu, must be seen as a situation of generalised violence resulting from a situation of internal armed conflict, in the meaning of Article L.712-1 c) Ceseda [which transposes Article 15 (c) of the Qualification Directive].
Date: 31-03-2011
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Sudan
Keywords: Subsidiary Protection, Individual threat, Armed conflict
The region of El Fasher, in Darfur (Sudan), is plagued by a generalised armed conflict.
Date: 17-12-2010
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Sri Lanka
Keywords: Subsidiary Protection, Real risk, Serious harm, Individual threat, Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict
The requirement of an individualisation of the threat to the life or person of an applicant for subsidiary protection is inversely proportional to the degree of indiscriminate violence which characterises the armed conflict.
Date: 03-07-2009
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Subsidiary Protection, Individual threat, Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict
The situation which prevails today in Mogadishu must be seen as a situation of generalised violence resulting from a situation of internal armed conflict. Its intensity is sufficient to consider that today the applicant faces a serious, direct and individual threat to his life or person, without being able to prevail himself of any protection.
Date: 09-06-2009
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Individual threat filterIndividual threat
- Subsidiary Protection 8
- Indiscriminate violence 5
- Internal armed conflict 4
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 3
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 2
- Real risk 2
- Armed conflict 1
- Effective access to procedures 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- Individual assessment 1
- Internal protection 1
- Persecution (acts of) 1
- Political Opinion 1
- Protection 1
- Refugee Status 1
- Serious harm 1
- Well-founded fear 1
Filter by country of applicant
Filter by country of decision
- (-) Remove France filterFrance
