You are here
Home › Belgium ›EDAL case summaries
Belgium - X v. Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons, 26 November 2019, N° 229 288
Country of Decision: Belgium
Country of Applicant: Ivory Coast
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Gender Based Persecution, Membership of a particular social group, Previous persecution, Real risk, Well-founded fear
The fact that an asylum applicant has already been persecuted in the past or has already suffered serious harm is a serious indication of the well-founded fear of the claimant, or of the real risk of suffering serious harm, unless there is good reason to believe that this persecution or serious harm will not happen again.
When an applicant has suffered female genital mutilation in her country of origin, there is a rebuttable presumption that she will again be the...
Date: 26-11-2019
Country of Decision: Belgium
Country of Applicant: Morocco
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Credibility assessment, Individual assessment, Membership of a particular social group, Sexual orientation
LGBT individuals who have left Morocco can be granted refugee status as the socially and legally hostile environment towards LGBT individuals in this country can justify fear of persecution based on their membership to a particular group. A cautious assessment of the consequences of a return to the country of origin and an extensive benefit of the doubt are advised in the review of asylum applications of Moroccan nationals identifying as LGBT.
Date: 24-04-2019
Country of Decision: Belgium
Keywords: Accommodation centre, Education (right to), Return
To not allow young adults who have been refused asylum to terminate their studies deprives Article 8 ECHR of all weight, an Article which protects an individual’s professional training and personal development. Even if the right to stay of a student is not protected by Article 8, the termination of a qualifying training which is on the horizon falls under the scope of private life within the ECHR. Therefore, the transfer of the applicant to a return centre would prevent her from finishing her schooling, ruining her 7 years of studies and would constitute a harm difficult to repair...
Date: 12-01-2018
Country of Decision: Belgium
Country of Applicant: Sudan
Keywords: Country of origin information, Effective access to procedures, Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Return
Where an individual is detained with a view to his removal and an Article 3 violation is alleged if the applicant is returned, it is for the Court to rule on the plea and thus assess the lawfulness of the decision to detain.
In the light of the ECtHR jurisprudence on Article 3 ECHR and country of origin information on Sudan the Belgian authorities had to rigorously verify if the applicant would risk being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR before issuing the order to leave the territory, which includes giving the applicant an effective opportunity to be heard. This...
Date: 04-01-2018
Country of Decision: Belgium
Country of Applicant: Gambia
Keywords: Material reception conditions, Reception conditions, Vulnerable person
The applicant, a victim of rape and forced marriage, has a subjective right to reception which allows her to live a life compatible with human dignity in light of her vulnerability and the minimum norms of reception. This right is entirely linked with FEDASIL’s competences to ensure reception is adapted to an individual’s circumstances. The statement of the asbl SOS VIOL clearly justifies why the applicant should be accommodated in a Local Reception Initiative, reception which is better adapted to the symptoms that she suffers from, notably anxiety and fear of men.The criticism of the...
Date: 13-12-2017
Country of Decision: Belgium
Country of Applicant: Albania
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, Circumstances ceased to exist, Country of origin, Duty of applicant, Exclusion from protection, Gender Based Persecution, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Obligation to give reasons, Personal circumstances of applicant, Previous persecution, Well-founded fear
An asylum applicant who was a victim of previous persecution in their country of origin can be granted refugee status under article 1, C 5) of the Geneva Convention. This is because, due to the severity of the treatment applied, the applicant’s fear is exacerbated to such an extent that, even if the persecution has ceased to exist, a return to the country of origin would be unthinkable.
Date: 17-08-2017
Country of Decision: Belgium
Country of Applicant: Congo (DRC)
Keywords: Exclusion from protection
After having committed several offences qualified as being of a ‘particular gravity’, Mr.O’s refugee status was revoked on April 21st 2006.
Upon appeal to the Council of Alien Law Litigation (‘CALL’), the question of the validity of article 55/3/1 of December 15th 1980 law (the ‘1980 Law’) arose. Although it is established that this provision is transposing article 14(4) of the Directive 2011/95/EU, its compatibility with the Geneva Convention must be verified.
The Council refuses then to pronounce itself on the question, arguing the competency of such matter is vested in the...
Date: 10-02-2017
Country of Decision: Belgium
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Armed conflict, Effective access to procedures, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Procedural guarantees, Visa
The Belgian Council for Alien Law Litigation has referred the following questions to the...
Date: 08-12-2016
Country of Decision: Belgium
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, Dublin Transfer, Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Reception conditions, Responsibility for examining application
The transfer of asylum seekers from Belgium to Austria, under the Dublin Regulation, is contrary to the principle of due diligence, because the government has failed to obtain information on the effects of the moratorium of the processing of asylum applications in Austria.
Date: 25-08-2016
Country of Decision: Belgium
Country of Applicant: Albania
The Royal Decree of 11th May 2015 was quashed to the extent that it included Albania in the list of "safe" countries for the purposes of article 57/6/1, paragraph 4, of the law of 15th December 1980.
Date: 23-06-2016
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 19
- Credibility assessment 17
- Membership of a particular social group 12
- Burden of proof 11
- Gender Based Persecution 9
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 9
- Subsequent application 9
- Subsidiary Protection 9
- Country of origin 8
- Exclusion from protection 8
- Individual assessment 8
- Internal protection 8
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 7
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 6
- Benefit of doubt 5
- Effective remedy (right to) 5
- Actors of protection 4
- Country of origin information 4
- Effective access to procedures 4
- First country of asylum 4
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 4
- Nationality 4
- Personal circumstances of applicant 4
- Political Opinion 4
- Previous persecution 4
- Procedural guarantees 4
- Return 4
- Safe third country 4
- Serious harm 4
- Accelerated procedure 3
- Accommodation centre 3
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 3
- Country of former habitual residence 3
- Female genital mutilation 3
- Indiscriminate violence 3
- Obligation to give reasons 3
- Persecution (acts of) 3
- Protection 3
- Reception conditions 3
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 3
- Vulnerable person 3
- Well-founded fear 3
- Best interest of the child 2
- Detention 2
- Dublin Transfer 2
- Duty of applicant 2
- Family reunification 2
- Internal armed conflict 2
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 2
- Material reception conditions 2
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 2
- Real risk 2
- Refugee sur place 2
- Responsibility for examining application 2
- Sexual orientation 2
- Standard of proof 2
- Stateless person 2
- Terrorism 2
- Visa 2
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 1
- Armed conflict 1
- Cessation of protection 1
- Circumstances ceased to exist 1
- Discrimination 1
- Education (right to) 1
- Family member 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- Final decision 1
- Genocide 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- Individual threat 1
- Integration measures 1
- Non-refoulement 1
- Relevant Documentation 1
- Relevant Facts 1
- Religion 1
- Request to take back 1
- Revocation of protection status 1
- Safe country of origin 1
- Sponsor 1
- Torture 1
- Unaccompanied minor 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 7
- Iraq 7
- Russia 6
- Guinea 4
- Rwanda 4
- Somalia 4
- Albania 3
- Cameroon 3
- Congo (DRC) 3
- Iran 3
- Morocco 3
- Palestinian Territory 3
- Syria 3
- Burundi 2
- Gambia 2
- Lebanon 2
- Togo 2
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
- China (Tibet) 1
- Egypt 1
- Georgia 1
- Ivory Coast 1
- Kosovo 1
- Macedonia 1
- Mauritania 1
- Niger 1
- Nigeria 1
- Pakistan 1
- Romania 1
- Russia (Chechnya) 1
- Senegal 1
- Serbia 1
- Sudan 1
- Turkey 1
- Unknown 1
Filter by country of decision
- (-) Remove Belgium filterBelgium
