You are here
Home › Belgium ›EDAL case summaries
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: 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
Country of Decision: Belgium
Country of Applicant: Palestinian Territory
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Visa
The applicant challenged the Belgian Minister of Asylum and Migration’s decision not to grant him a humanitarian visa via an emergency application before the CALL. He relied on the following grounds: inter alia, (i) his medical condition and (ii) the poor living conditions of the West Bank in Palestine.
The CALL decided (i) these two elements justified an urgent decision, (ii) there was a risk of serious prejudice which would be difficult to remedy if the Minister’s decision was enforced, and (iii) there were serious grounds for invalidating the Minister’s decision since...
Date: 25-05-2016
Country of Decision: Belgium
Country of Applicant: Togo
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Final decision, Non-refoulement, Procedural guarantees, Return, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect)
The Council of State requested a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the compatibility of Belgian Law with Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC (the “Directive”). The Directive requires Member States to respect the principle of non-refoulement, as well as ensure that there is a right to an effective remedy.
Under Belgian Law, the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (the “Commissioner”) can dismiss an asylum application and issue an order to leave the territory (“Return Order...
Date: 08-03-2016
Country of Decision: Belgium
Country of Applicant: Cameroon
Keywords: Family member, Family reunification, Sponsor
When assessing the legal requirement that a Belgian spouse has to prove that he/she has means of subsistence which are “stable, regular and sufficient”, the applicant’s financial means can be taken into consideration [because according to art. 221.1 and 2 of the Civil Code the Belgian spouse is capable of legally disposing of the applicant’s financial means].
Date: 25-01-2016
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 16
- Credibility assessment 16
- Burden of proof 10
- Membership of a particular social group 10
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 9
- Subsequent application 9
- Subsidiary Protection 9
- Internal protection 8
- Country of origin 7
- Exclusion from protection 7
- Gender Based Persecution 7
- Individual assessment 7
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 6
- 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
- Nationality 4
- Political Opinion 4
- Return 4
- Safe third country 4
- Serious harm 4
- Accelerated procedure 3
- Country of former habitual residence 3
- Female genital mutilation 3
- Indiscriminate violence 3
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 3
- Persecution (acts of) 3
- Personal circumstances of applicant 3
- Procedural guarantees 3
- Protection 3
- Reception conditions 3
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 3
- Vulnerable person 3
- Accommodation centre 2
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 2
- Best interest of the child 2
- Detention 2
- Dublin Transfer 2
- Family reunification 2
- Internal armed conflict 2
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 2
- Material reception conditions 2
- Obligation to give reasons 2
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 2
- Previous persecution 2
- Refugee sur place 2
- Responsibility for examining application 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
- Discrimination 1
- Duty of applicant 1
- Education (right to) 1
- Family member 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- Final decision 1
- Genocide 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- Individual threat 1
- Non-refoulement 1
- Real risk 1
- Relevant Documentation 1
- Relevant Facts 1
- Religion 1
- Request to take back 1
- Revocation of protection status 1
- Safe country of origin 1
- Sexual orientation 1
- Sponsor 1
- Torture 1
- Unaccompanied minor 1
- Well-founded fear 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 7
- Iraq 6
- Russia 6
- Guinea 4
- Rwanda 4
- Somalia 4
- Cameroon 3
- Congo (DRC) 3
- Iran 3
- Palestinian Territory 3
- Syria 3
- Albania 2
- Burundi 2
- Gambia 2
- Lebanon 2
- Morocco 2
- Togo 2
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
- China (Tibet) 1
- Egypt 1
- Georgia 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
