You are here
Home › Crime against humanity ›EDAL case summaries
The fact that a person has been the subject, in the past, of a decision excluding him from refugee status cannot automatically permit the finding that the mere presence of that person in the territory of the host Member State constitutes a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. A case-by-case assessment is necessary before a measure based on grounds of public policy or public security is adopted. This assessment includes weighing the threat against the protection of the rights of EU citizens and their...
The applicant, who had deserted the Syrian army, was seen in isolation covered by the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1) [refugee status]. However, the Board found serious reasons to assume that the applicant had committed a crime against humanity and war crimes during his military service and consequently he was excluded from protection. Nevertheless, the Danish Aliens Act Art. 31, (2) is an obstacle to his expulsion as he would risk persecution covered by the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1) in the case of returning to Syria.
This case is concerned with whether the decision to deny the asylum application and the subsequently imposed entry ban were justified based on articles 1F(a)-(c). Under these provisions the Secretary of State can raise national security as a ‘serious ground’ for his decision if an element of ‘personal participation’ can be proven.
This case is concerned with whether the Secretary of State for Justice has discharged or breached his duty of care with regards to the risk of refoulement in an asylum application.
The assigned political belief of an individual, his desertion or avoiding being drafted in the army are sufficient to grant a refugee status to an individual, if there is a connection between the reasons for persecution and the acts of persecution in line with Article 1.A of the Geneva Convention 1951 in a situation of an armed conflict.
According to the jurisprudence of the Supreme Administrative Court an oral hearing can only be waived if the complaint does not claim any facts relevant to the assessment which are in contradiction or go beyond the result of the administrative investigation procedures.
On the contrary, it constitutes a substantiated denial of the consideration of evidence by the relevant authority if a complaint questions the credibility of different sources which formed the basis of such consideration. The lack of an oral proceeding in such cases leads to a violation of the obligation to hold a...
An applicant’s interest in remaining in a Member State pending a decision on their right to remain will prevail if, due to a lack of knowledge about the actual living situation of refugees in the third country and negative public reports regarding such situations, there can be no assurance that the applicant will be safe in said third country.
The issue in this case was “complicity” – the Court analysed the facts of the applicant’s involvement in a violent paramilitary force in Iran to determine whether he was complicit in crimes against humanity, so as to be excluded from international protection.
An Iraqi man, previously a member of the Ba'ath Party, was granted refugee status. There were not found to be any grounds for exclusion. The man's son was also granted refugee status, with reference to the principle of family unity.
This case concerned exclusion from refugee status on the basis of a war crime and a serious non-political crime.
A Chechen who was involved in the Second Chechen War - outside of the general combat action - in the killing and wounding of Russian soldiers and the kidnapping of a Russian officer to force the release of another Chechen is at risk of being exposed to torture or at least inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the Russian Federation.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Crime against humanity filterCrime against humanity
- Exclusion from protection 21
- War crimes 13
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 8
- Serious non-political crime 6
- Standard of proof 4
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 3
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 3
- First country of asylum 3
- Individual assessment 3
- Refugee Status 3
- Relevant Facts 3
- Terrorism 3
- Armed conflict 2
- Burden of proof 2
- Country of origin 2
- Dublin Transfer 2
- Family member 2
- Humanitarian considerations 2
- Internal armed conflict 2
- International armed conflict 2
- Nationality 2
- Non-refoulement 2
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 2
- Political Opinion 2
- Real risk 2
- Return 2
- Revocation of protection status 2
- Well-founded fear 2
- Benefit of doubt 1
- Country of origin information 1
- Credibility assessment 1
- Delay 1
- Detention 1
- Effective access to procedures 1
- Effective remedy (right to) 1
- Indirect refoulement 1
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 1
- Integration measures 1
- Internal protection 1
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 1
- Persecution (acts of) 1
- Personal circumstances of applicant 1
- Previous persecution 1
- Procedural guarantees 1
- Relevant Documentation 1
- Request to take back 1
- Responsibility for examining application 1
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 1
- Safe third country 1
- Subsidiary Protection 1
- Torture 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 6
- Russia 5
- Syria 4
- Russia (Chechnya) 3
- Rwanda 3
- Iraq 2
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
- Colombia 1
- Croatia 1
- Iran 1
- Sri Lanka 1
- Turkey 1
- Zimbabwe 1
Filter by country of decision
- Germany 7
- Netherlands 4
- United Kingdom 3
- Austria 2
- Ireland 2
- Sweden 2
- Czech Republic 1
- Denmark 1
- Slovenia 1
- Spain 1