EDAL case summaries
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
Country of Applicant: Iran
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, Country of origin information, Final decision, Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Membership of a particular social group, Non-refoulement, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Personal circumstances of applicant, Political Opinion, Protection, Refugee Status, Refugee sur place, Religion, Return
An Article 3 compliant assessment requires a full and ex nunc evaluation of a claim. Where the State is made aware of facts that could expose an applicant to an individual risk of ill-treatment, regardless of whether the applicant chooses to rely on such facts, it is obliged to assess this risk ex proprio motu.
Date: 23-03-2016
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 Applicant: Sudan
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, Country of origin, Detention, Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Persecution (acts of), Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Personal circumstances of applicant, Previous persecution, Race, Real risk, Refugee Status, Well-founded fear
The case relates to a Sudanese national of Tunjur origin who claimed a risk of being subjected to ill-treatment if expelled to Sudan on the grounds of his ethnic origin and supposed ties with the JEM, the rebels’ movement against the regime in Sudan.
Date: 15-04-2015
Country of Applicant: Sudan
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Access to the labour market, Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, Country of origin, Detention, Effective remedy (right to), Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Persecution (acts of), Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Personal circumstances of applicant, Previous persecution, Race, Real risk, Refugee Status, Well-founded fear
The case examines the allegations of a Sudanese national- member of a non-Arab tribe in Sudan- that his deportation to that country would expose him to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention because of his race and supposed links with the rebel movements in the country.
Date: 15-04-2015
Country of Decision: Poland
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Individual assessment, Personal circumstances of applicant, Burden of proof, Refugee Status, Refugee sur place, Membership of a particular social group, Subsequent application
The third action in a row brought by a foreign woman for refugee status ended in the issue of a judgment dismissing the case as it was found that the basis for the application was the same as in the previous cases and the application was therefore inadmissible. The Court overturned the negative decision by the Polish Council for Refugees, as the new application by the foreign woman stated that she had divorced her then husband and had been in a relationship for a year with a Polish citizen, which might cause persecution on religious grounds were she to return to her country of origin.
Date: 13-06-2012
Country of Decision: Greece
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Burden of proof, Child Specific Considerations, Individual assessment, Membership of a particular social group, Obligation to give reasons, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Procedural guarantees, Protection, Race, Real risk, Reception conditions, Refugee Status, Standard of proof, Subsidiary Protection, Unaccompanied minor, Well-founded fear
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...
Date: 31-12-2008
Country of Decision: Greece
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Burden of proof, Child Specific Considerations, Individual assessment, Membership of a particular social group, Obligation to give reasons, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Procedural guarantees, Protection, Race, Real risk, Reception conditions, Refugee Status, Standard of proof, Subsidiary Protection, Unaccompanied minor, Well-founded fear
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...
Date: 31-12-2008
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Burden of proof filterBurden of proof
- (-) Remove Refugee Status filterRefugee Status
- Individual assessment 6
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 5
- Real risk 5
- Well-founded fear 5
- Detention 4
- Membership of a particular social group 4
- Personal circumstances of applicant 4
- Race 4
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 3
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 3
- Persecution (acts of) 3
- Protection 3
- Standard of proof 3
- Best interest of the child 2
- Child Specific Considerations 2
- Country of origin 2
- Effective remedy (right to) 2
- Obligation to give reasons 2
- Previous persecution 2
- Procedural guarantees 2
- Reception conditions 2
- Refugee sur place 2
- Subsequent application 2
- Subsidiary Protection 2
- Unaccompanied minor 2
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Access to the labour market 1
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 1
- Country of origin information 1
- Credibility assessment 1
- Duty of applicant 1
- Effective access to procedures 1
- Final decision 1
- Individual threat 1
- Non-refoulement 1
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 1
- Political Opinion 1
- Relevant Documentation 1
- Relevant Facts 1
- Religion 1
- Return 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 2
- Russia 2
- Sudan 2
- Egypt 1
- Iran 1
