You are here
Home › Refugee Status ›EDAL case summaries
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Effective remedy (right to), Final decision, Refugee Status
In order to guarantee that an applicant for international protection has an effective judicial remedy within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter, a national court or tribunal is required to vary a decision of the first-instance determining body that does not comply with its previous judgment. The court or tribunal must substitute its own decision on the application for international protection by disapplying, if necessary, the national law that prohibits it from proceeding in that way.
Date: 29-07-2019
Country of Decision: Greece
Country of Applicant: Bangladesh
Keywords: Refugee Status, Residence document, Vulnerable person
The recognition of gender identity is a matter of respect towards the individual’s personality, protected under Greek and international law and applicable by analogy to refugees. Refugees must be able to request assistance from the authorities of the host-country, as refugeehood entails severed ties with the country of origin making it impossible for recognised refugees to request official actions from their governments.
Date: 31-12-2018
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Effective remedy (right to), Refugee Status, Subsidiary Protection
The CJEU ruled on whether an individual could appeal a decision which refused refugee status but granted subsidiary protection status, even if the rights and benefits afforded by each international protection status are identical in national law.
Date: 18-10-2018
Country of Applicant: Azerbaijan
Keywords: Individual assessment, Personal circumstances of applicant, Political Opinion, Refugee Status
CJEU rules on the correct processing of applications for international protection lodged separately by family members and the interrelationship between them.
Date: 04-10-2018
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Detention, Nationality, Refugee Status
The ECtHR ruled that the detention of a Syrian national was unlawful as his return to Syria was impracticable, which the authorities should have known at that time. It was incumbent on the domestic authorities to consider alternative measures in respect of the applicant. The applicant did not have the benefit of an examination of the lawfulness of his detention to a sufficient degree. Therefore, there was a violation of Articles 5(1) and (4) ECHR.
The ECtHR also ruled that his detention at the Zografou police station led to a violation of his...
Date: 21-06-2018
Country of Decision: Denmark
Country of Applicant: China
Keywords: Country of origin information, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Political Opinion, Refugee Status, Relevant Documentation, Torture
The applicant, a Chinese citizen, feared, if she returned to China, she would be persecuted and exposed to torture by the Chinese Communist Government due to her Falun Gong activities.
The Refugee Appeals Board did not find that she was a particular profiled member of Falun Gong or that she was wanted by the Chinese Authorities as she left China legally notwithstanding that she had been detained several times for shorter periods and imprisoned for seven years during which she was exposed to torture. However, the Board found that the Chinese Authorities were aware of the applicant ‘s...
Date: 18-06-2018
Country of Decision: Denmark
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Country of origin information, Internal armed conflict, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Refugee Status, Relevant Facts, Subsidiary Protection
The complainant, an Ethnic Maktumin Stateless Kurd from Amuda, Al-Hasakah, Syria, was granted temporary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (3).
On 31 August 2017 the complainant lodged a complaint claiming refugee status under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1) or alternatively subsidiary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (2).
The Board found that the complainant fulfilled the conditions for subsidiary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (2) as he would risk participating in acts of war during the compulsory military service.
Date: 25-05-2018
Country of Decision: Denmark
Country of Applicant: Uganda
Keywords: Discrimination, Membership of a particular social group, Refugee Status, Relevant Facts, Sexual orientation, Well-founded fear
The applicant, an ethnic Samia and Christian Protestant from Mukono, Uganda, became aware of his sexual orientation when he was between 7 and 9 years old and has had several both short and longer relations with men.
The Refugee Appeals Board accepted the applicants account which included imprisonment and physical and sexual abuse as well as harassment by village locals. Consequently, the Board found that the applicant was at risk of persecution by his family and locals against which no protection by the authorities could be obtained. Therefore, the applicant was granted refugee...
Date: 17-05-2018
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Turkey
Keywords: Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN, Exclusion from protection, Refugee Status, Terrorism
The applicant’s asylum claim has been rejected on the grounds of Article 1F(c) of the 1951 Refugee Convention. The act he committed would amount to being contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN. However, the Council of State hereby decided that in failing to seek and qualify the severity of this act in the light of its effects internationally, the lower court made an error of law.
Date: 11-04-2018
Country of Applicant: Egypt
Keywords: Burden of proof, Detention, Refugee Status
The ECtHR ruled that the detention of an Egyptian national upon arrival in Belgium was lawful as there had been no violation of Article 5(1) of ECHR and the refusal of refugee status was justified.
Date: 04-04-2018
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Refugee Status filterRefugee Status
- Well-founded fear 53
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 48
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 46
- Real risk 44
- Detention 37
- Effective remedy (right to) 37
- Protection 37
- Subsidiary Protection 36
- Persecution (acts of) 35
- Country of origin information 34
- Membership of a particular social group 33
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 29
- Credibility assessment 29
- Political Opinion 26
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 22
- Personal circumstances of applicant 22
- Procedural guarantees 22
- Individual assessment 20
- Non-refoulement 19
- Effective access to procedures 16
- Internal protection 16
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 16
- Torture 16
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 15
- Relevant Documentation 15
- Return 15
- Child Specific Considerations 14
- Discrimination 14
- Obligation to give reasons 14
- Relevant Facts 14
- Sexual orientation 14
- Country of origin 13
- Family unity (right to) 13
- Material reception conditions 13
- Reception conditions 13
- Exclusion from protection 11
- Gender Based Persecution 11
- Best interest of the child 10
- Family member 10
- Previous persecution 10
- Religion 10
- Safe country of origin 10
- Unaccompanied minor 10
- Dublin Transfer 9
- Personal interview 9
- Race 9
- Subsequent application 9
- Actors of protection 8
- Burden of proof 8
- Dependant (Dependent person) 8
- Inadmissible application 8
- Individual threat 8
- Standard of proof 8
- Duty of applicant 7
- Family reunification 7
- Revocation of protection status 7
- Terrorism 7
- Female genital mutilation 6
- Final decision 6
- First country of asylum 6
- Internal armed conflict 6
- Refugee sur place 6
- Safe third country 6
- Serious harm 6
- Stateless person 6
- Access to the labour market 5
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 5
- Health (right to) 5
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 5
- Manifestly unfounded application 5
- Request to take back 5
- Responsibility for examining application 5
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 5
- Accelerated procedure 4
- Accommodation centre 4
- Armed conflict 4
- Humanitarian considerations 4
- Serious non-political crime 4
- Benefit of doubt 3
- Crime against humanity 3
- Delay 3
- International armed conflict 3
- Nationality 3
- Request that charge be taken 3
- Residence document 3
- Vulnerable person 3
- War crimes 3
- Country of former habitual residence 2
- Freedom of movement (right to) 2
- Integration measures 2
- Trafficking in human beings 2
- Visa 2
- Cessation of protection 1
- Circumstances ceased to exist 1
- Death penalty / Execution 1
- Indirect refoulement 1
- Indiscriminate violence 1
- More favourable provisions 1
- Sponsor 1
- Withdrawal of protection application 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 22
- Syria 22
- Turkey 17
- Russia 13
- Somalia 13
- Iran 9
- Nigeria 9
- Iraq 6
- Lebanon 6
- Pakistan 6
- Sudan 6
- Congo (DRC) 5
- Palestinian Territory 5
- Sri Lanka 5
- Bangladesh 4
- Ethiopia 4
- Russia (Chechnya) 4
- Sierra Leone 4
- Albania 3
- Algeria 3
- Cameroon 3
- Egypt 3
- Eritrea 3
- India 3
- Azerbaijan 2
- China 2
- Gambia 2
- Jordan 2
- Kyrgyzstan 2
- Morocco 2
- Rwanda 2
- Senegal 2
- South Africa 2
- Tunisia 2
- Uganda 2
- United Kingdom 2
- Unknown 2
- Angola 1
- Czech Republic 1
- France 1
- Georgia 1
- Ghana 1
- Guinea-Bissau 1
- Ivory Coast 1
- Kazakhstan 1
- Kuwait 1
- Liberia 1
- Mongolia 1
- Nepal 1
- Slovakia 1
- Tanzania 1
- Togo 1
- Ukraine 1
Filter by country of decision
- Greece 23
- Germany 16
- France 15
- United Kingdom 14
- Ireland 13
- Poland 11
- Sweden 10
- Austria 9
- Denmark 9
- Hungary 8
- Italy 6
- Spain 2
- Switzerland 2
- Czech Republic 1
- Slovenia 1
