You are here
Home › Humanitarian considerations ›EDAL case summaries
Court ruled upon the correct test to use when considering returns to Palestine.
In this case, the Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal against a High Court Judgment in which the Refugee Appeals Tribunal was found to have erred in law in its approach to determining persecution. The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal on the basis that the tribunal member’s finding of no risk of persecution was not unreasonable (within the applicable standards of judicial review) and that the High Court was incorrect in finding that the extent of educational discrimination at issue in this case met the threshold of persecution required.
D.T., who possesses a leave to remain in Poland due to humanitarian considerations, appealed the Municipal Appeal Board’s decision to uphold the decision refusing to award her child benefits. Relying on a purposive interpretation of the applicable regulations regarding social welfare and the access of foreigners to the labour market, the Court decided to set aside both decisions, while stressing that the deciding body shall be bound by the legal analysis contained in the Court order.
A member state may derogate from Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 (the “Dublin-III-Regulation“), by examining an application for international protection despite the fact that the members state is not responsible for the examination according to the criteria laid down in the Dublin-III-Regulation.
When assessing Article 17 (1) of the Dublin-III-Regulation (the discretionary clause), the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (the “Federal Office”) must give priority to the best interest of the child and the right to respect...
Due to systemic deficiencies in the Maltese asylum system, a responsibility on the part of the German authorities to examine the asylum application exists by virtue of the sovereignty clause in the Dublin III Regulation.
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.
Whilst the Appeals Committee believes that the applicant was ‘wronged’ during the administrative procedures in the First and Second Degree (pursuant to Decree 113/2013), the Committee is unable to request a new personal interview, because no such provision exists within the national legislation (Regulation Service of Authority and Appeal 339/2013 opinion of the Legal Council).
An Applicant’s interest in remaining in a Member State prevails over the public’s interest in deporting the Applicant to the Member State in which the Applicant first sought asylum if there is a predominant degree of likelihood that the Applicant will be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment in the other Member State (e.g. because of significant capacity problems and a change to its asylum law).
The presumption that Italy remains in compliance with its EU and International Law obligations related to the reception and integration of asylum seekers and Beneficiaries of International Protection has not been rebutted. Asylum seekers and BIPs suffering from severe psychological trauma can be returned to Italy with no real risk of breaching article 3 ECHR, or 4 CFREU, since the Country's reception capacities have not been exceeded, while effective medical treatment is available under the same terms as to Italian nationals.
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.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Humanitarian considerations filterHumanitarian considerations
- Dublin Transfer 14
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 14
- Responsibility for examining application 11
- Subsidiary Protection 11
- Family unity (right to) 9
- Return 8
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 7
- Safe third country 7
- Country of origin information 6
- Credibility assessment 6
- Family member 6
- Health (right to) 6
- Non-refoulement 6
- Personal circumstances of applicant 6
- Reception conditions 6
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 5
- First country of asylum 5
- Internal protection 5
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 5
- Real risk 5
- Serious harm 5
- Benefit of doubt 4
- Best interest of the child 4
- Burden of proof 4
- Child Specific Considerations 4
- Indiscriminate violence 4
- Individual assessment 4
- Internal armed conflict 4
- Membership of a particular social group 4
- Refugee Status 4
- Request to take back 4
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 4
- Torture 4
- Vulnerable person 4
- Detention 3
- Discrimination 3
- Effective remedy (right to) 3
- Gender Based Persecution 3
- Nationality 3
- Political Opinion 3
- Procedural guarantees 3
- Protection 3
- Race 3
- Relevant Facts 3
- Religion 3
- Well-founded fear 3
- Armed conflict 2
- Country of origin 2
- Crime against humanity 2
- Delay 2
- Dependant (Dependent person) 2
- Exclusion from protection 2
- Individual threat 2
- Obligation to give reasons 2
- Personal interview 2
- Subsequent application 2
- Unaccompanied minor 2
- Access to the labour market 1
- Accommodation centre 1
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 1
- Actors of protection 1
- Cessation of protection 1
- Education (right to) 1
- Effective access to procedures 1
- Family reunification 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- Indirect refoulement 1
- Integration measures 1
- Manifestly unfounded application 1
- Material reception conditions 1
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 1
- Persecution (acts of) 1
- Previous persecution 1
- Refugee sur place 1
- Relevant Documentation 1
- Request that charge be taken 1
- Revocation of protection status 1
- Serious non-political crime 1
- Standard of proof 1
- Stateless person 1
- Temporary protection 1
- Terrorism 1
- Trafficking in human beings 1
- Visa 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 6
- Iraq 4
- Russia 4
- Russia (Chechnya) 4
- Nigeria 3
- Somalia 3
- Sudan 3
- Unknown 3
- Algeria 2
- Armenia 2
- Cameroon 2
- Eritrea 2
- Mongolia 2
- Syria 2
- Turkey 2
- Azerbaijan 1
- Bangladesh 1
- Burkina Faso 1
- China (Tibet) 1
- India 1
- Iran 1
- Ivory Coast 1
- Kosovo 1
- Mauritania 1
- Palestinian Territory 1
- Serbia 1
- Uzbekistan 1
- Vietnam 1
Filter by country of decision
- Sweden 13
- Germany 9
- Spain 5
- Austria 4
- France 4
- Greece 3
- Hungary 3
- Finland 2
- Slovakia 2
- United Kingdom 2
- Czech Republic 1
- Ireland 1
- Netherlands 1
- Poland 1