You are here
Home › Protection ›EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Family member, Political Opinion, Protection, Refugee Status
The parents and minor siblings of a Syrian national, who was recognised as a refugee, cannot claim refugee status in terms of international protection for family members, if the beneficiary, although a minor when he was registered as an asylum applicant, was no longer a minor at the time of the court hearing.
Date: 13-03-2020
Country of Decision: Switzerland
Country of Applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Accommodation centre, Dublin Transfer, Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Material reception conditions, Protection, Reception conditions, Vulnerable person
In view of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Swiss authorities should obtain formal and detailed guarantees on care and accommodation from the Italian authorities before transferring families and vulnerable persons to Italy under the Dublin III Regulation.
This is because Decree-law 113/218 on Public safety and Immigration in Italy has deeply reformed the Italian refugee reception system.
Date: 17-12-2019
Country of Decision: Belgium
Country of Applicant: Guinea
Keywords: Female genital mutilation, Gender Based Persecution, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Obligation/Duty to cooperate, Protection, Real risk, Relevant Documentation, Relevant Facts
A Guinean woman who has been forced into marriage at a young age and subsequently harassed into marrying her late husband’s brother, is a refugee under article 1, section A §2 of the Geneva Convention. She risks being persecuted by reason of her membership in the social group of women, and considering the regular violation of women’s rights occuring in Guinea.
Date: 19-06-2019
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 Applicant: Palestinian Territory
Keywords: Exclusion from protection, Inadmissible application, Protection
Where a person is registered with UNRWA and then later applies for international protection in a European Union Member State such persons are in principle excluded from refugee status in the European Union unless it becomes evident, on the basis of an individualised assessment of all relevant evidence, that their personal safety is at serious risk and it is impossible for UNRWA to guarantee that the living conditions are compatible with its mission and that due to these circumstances the individual has been forced to leave the UNRWA area of operations.
Date: 25-07-2018
Country of Decision: Sweden
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Individual assessment, Individual threat, Internal protection, Protection, Real risk
The applicant appealed the Migration Court’s decision to dismiss his application for asylum on grounds of the availability of an internal protection alternative in the applicants home country of Afghanistan.
The Migration Court of Appeal granted the appeal as it was held that the question of internal protection can only be assessed after the court has made an individual assessment of the original grounds for protection invoked by the applicant.
Date: 19-06-2018
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Child Specific Considerations, Credibility assessment, Individual assessment, Internal protection, Obligation to give reasons, Protection, Return, Safe country of origin, Serious harm, Subsidiary Protection, Vulnerable person
The judicial examination of whether subsidiary protection shall be approved requires a thorough assessment of the individual case. This applies in particular for especially vulnerable persons.
Date: 21-03-2018
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: More favourable provisions, Protection, Refugee Status, Subsidiary Protection
The Regional Administrative Court of Upper Austria requests a preliminary ruling of the CJEU concerning the interpretation of Article 29 Directive 2011/95/EU in the context of social assistance for persons entitled to asylum with a temporary residence permit.
1) Must Article 29 Directive 2011/95/EU, entitling persons subject to international protection to the same level of social assistance in the Member State as nationals of this Member State, be interpreted as fulfilling the conditions for direct effect as set out in the CJEU’s jurisprudence?
2) Must Article 29 Directive...
Date: 18-12-2017
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Dependant (Dependent person), Female genital mutilation, Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Membership of a particular social group, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Personal circumstances of applicant, Protection, Refugee Status, Subsidiary Protection
In countries where there is a high prevalence of female genital mutilation (FGM), as in Nigeria, non-excised persons can be considered as having a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of membership of a particular social group within the meaning of Article 1A(2) of 1951 Refugee Convention. Refugee status can be granted where there is a considerable risk of excision and insufficient protection against this threat.
Date: 23-10-2017
Country of Decision: Hungary
Country of Applicant: Egypt
Keywords: Child Specific Considerations, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Persecution (acts of), Protection, Real risk, Refugee Status, Relevant Facts, Religion, Well-founded fear
The Immigration and Asylum Office unlawfully rejected the claimant’s application for international protection. The court found that the authorities did not objectively assess the evidence and country information provided by the claimant, a Coptic Christian from Egypt. They also failed to correctly interpret the definition of a refugee in accordance with international law and disregarded the special status of the claimant who was an underage applicant.
Date: 22-09-2017
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Protection filterProtection
- Refugee Status 39
- Real risk 29
- Well-founded fear 24
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 17
- Subsidiary Protection 16
- Membership of a particular social group 15
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 14
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 14
- Persecution (acts of) 14
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 13
- Credibility assessment 12
- Individual assessment 11
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 10
- Non-refoulement 10
- Procedural guarantees 10
- Individual threat 9
- Internal protection 9
- Serious harm 9
- Torture 9
- Country of origin information 8
- Effective remedy (right to) 8
- Obligation to give reasons 8
- Personal circumstances of applicant 8
- Political Opinion 7
- Previous persecution 7
- Actors of protection 6
- Burden of proof 6
- Child Specific Considerations 6
- Country of origin 6
- Gender Based Persecution 6
- Relevant Documentation 6
- Religion 6
- Return 6
- Vulnerable person 6
- Exclusion from protection 5
- First country of asylum 5
- Manifestly unfounded application 5
- Reception conditions 5
- Unaccompanied minor 5
- Best interest of the child 4
- Country of former habitual residence 4
- Dependant (Dependent person) 4
- Effective access to procedures 4
- Final decision 4
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 4
- Nationality 4
- Race 4
- Relevant Facts 4
- Safe country of origin 4
- Safe third country 4
- Standard of proof 4
- Armed conflict 3
- Cessation of protection 3
- Detention 3
- Dublin Transfer 3
- Female genital mutilation 3
- Health (right to) 3
- Humanitarian considerations 3
- Inadmissible application 3
- More favourable provisions 3
- Refugee sur place 3
- Revocation of protection status 3
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 3
- Access to the labour market 2
- Discrimination 2
- Duty of applicant 2
- Indiscriminate violence 2
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 2
- Request to take back 2
- Serious non-political crime 2
- Stateless person 2
- Terrorism 2
- Trafficking in human beings 2
- Visa 2
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Accommodation centre 1
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 1
- Benefit of doubt 1
- Circumstances ceased to exist 1
- Death penalty / Execution 1
- Family member 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- Internal armed conflict 1
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 1
- Material reception conditions 1
- Residence document 1
- Responsibility for examining application 1
- Sexual orientation 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 12
- Syria 7
- Iran 6
- Palestinian Territory 5
- Russia 5
- Nigeria 4
- Pakistan 4
- Turkey 4
- Albania 3
- Kazakhstan 3
- Sri Lanka 3
- Unknown 3
- Algeria 2
- Congo (DRC) 2
- Eritrea 2
- Guinea 2
- India 2
- Iraq 2
- Angola 1
- Azerbaijan 1
- Bangladesh 1
- Czech Republic 1
- Egypt 1
- Ethiopia 1
- Georgia 1
- Ghana 1
- Greece 1
- Kosovo 1
- Macedonia 1
- Mauritania 1
- Morocco 1
- Russia (Chechnya) 1
- Somalia 1
- Uzbekistan 1
Filter by country of decision
- Greece 17
- Austria 6
- France 6
- Germany 5
- Spain 5
- United Kingdom 5
- Belgium 4
- Ireland 4
- Czech Republic 2
- Poland 2
- Slovakia 2
- Slovenia 2
- Sweden 2
- Hungary 1
- Luxembourg 1
- Switzerland 1
