EDAL case summaries
Following the appeal of the Children’s Rights Ombudsman, the Supreme Administrative Court set aside the order of the Regional Administrative Court, in relation to a challenge to the decision of the Polish Refugee Board, and set aside the aforementioned decision to refuse tolerated stay, dismissing the appeal in all other respects.
The court justified its decision with reference to the procedural errors of the Polish Refugee Board, which included failing to gather evidence in an appropriate manner and inappropriately establishing the facts relating to the Applicant’s children....
Following the careful examination of International, European and domestic law, the Court concluded that the grant of refugee status supersedes any order made by a Family Court (regarding the return of the child to Pakistan), because it is the Secretary of State for the Home Department that is the entrusted public authority to deal with asylum matters. However, were the Family Court to discover new facts, the relevant public authority would be responsible, in principle, under the tenets of UK Administrative Law to review their decision.
Judicial review to challenge the failure/refusal of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“SoS”) to determine the application of the applicant’s spouse and two youngest children for family reunification in the UK on the following grounds: a failure to apply the SoS published policy; irrationality; breach of all the family members’ rights under Art. 8 ECHR; and (regarding the two children in the UK), breach of the duties owed under s.55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 (“the 2009 Act”).
The Upper Tribunal found that:
1) the Home Office family...
The Immigration Rules (“the Rules”) minimum income requirements (“the MIR”) for individuals who have a right to live in the UK who wish to bring their non-EEA citizen spouses to live with them are not open to legal challenge.
The Rules fail unlawfully to give effect to the duty of the Secretary of State (“the SoS”) in respect of the welfare of children under s.55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 (“the 2009 Act”), however the challenge to the validity of the Rules was dismissed.
To ensure that their decisions are compatible with the Human Rights Act...
This case dealt with the issue of whether the Secretary of State’s certification of the asylum claims of the two independent applicants as “clearly unfounded” was flawed on public law grounds, and the important difference between a decision on refugee status itself and a decision on a claim being “clearly unfounded”.
This case examined the denial of a minor’s application for asylum which was decided primarily on the failure of his mother’s application. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal did not consider Country of Origin Information (COI) from the child’s perspective. Furthermore, clear reasons were not given for the refusal decision. The High Court granted leave and quashed the Refugee Appeals Tribunals decision to deny refugee status to the child. The Court also held that the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration of the Tribunal both with regard to the procedure and substantive...
The European Court of Human Rights has held that the detention conditions on the island of Chios, the detention centre of Tychero and the north of Greece, where a minor Palestinian was held, were not in breach of article 3 of the Convention.
In addition, the Court did not accept that the applicant’s right to liberty and security (article 5) and right to an effective remedy (article 13) had been violated.
This case concerned fear of persecution for reasons of race and membership of a particular social group. The provisions of Article 1(4) of Presidential Decree 61/1999, which should be interpreted with reference to Articles 3 and 22 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, recognize the special circumstances of asylum applications submitted by unaccompanied minors, for whom special procedural guarantees have been established. When examining asylum applications submitted by unaccompanied minors one must consider the Applicants' maturity and level of mental development; take into...
Application for annulment of a decision by the Minister of Public Order
The case addressed the absence of procedural guarantees in the context of appointing a Commissioner and assessing the applicant’s level of maturity with regard to the need for special treatment of an unaccompanied minor.
The lack of personal persecution of an alien applicant does not preclude the recognition of refugee status if it is shown that there is an objective and well-founded fear of individual persecution in the applicant's country.
The Court found that the decision of the Minister for...
The European Court of Human Rights found that the authorities in the Netherlands had violated the right to family life of five Ethiopian nationals by not allowing them to be reunited in the Netherlands.
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Best interest of the child filterBest interest of the child
- (-) Remove Refugee Status filterRefugee Status
- Child Specific Considerations 7
- Family member 4
- Membership of a particular social group 4
- Well-founded fear 4
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 3
- Dependant (Dependent person) 3
- Family reunification 3
- Family unity (right to) 3
- Individual assessment 3
- Obligation to give reasons 3
- Procedural guarantees 3
- Protection 3
- Real risk 3
- Reception conditions 3
- Subsidiary Protection 3
- Unaccompanied minor 3
- Burden of proof 2
- Country of origin information 2
- Credibility assessment 2
- Effective access to procedures 2
- Internal protection 2
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 2
- Persecution (acts of) 2
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 2
- Personal circumstances of applicant 2
- Race 2
- Relevant Documentation 2
- Relevant Facts 2
- Standard of proof 2
- Accommodation centre 1
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 1
- Detention 1
- Effective remedy (right to) 1
- Individual threat 1
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 1
- Manifestly unfounded application 1
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 1
- Responsibility for examining application 1
- Return 1
- Safe country of origin 1
- Sponsor 1
- Vulnerable person 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 2
- Congo (DRC) 2
- Lebanon 2
- Albania 1
- Ethiopia 1
- Kuwait 1
- Pakistan 1
- Russia (Chechnya) 1
- United Kingdom 1
Filter by country of decision
- United Kingdom 4
- Greece 2
- Ireland 1
- Poland 1