You are here
Home › Assessment of facts and circumstances ›EDAL case summaries
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Effective remedy (right to), Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Procedural guarantees, Return
The standardised nature of the questions to the applicants and similarities in the responses recorded do not necessarily indicate a lack of individualised assessment. The applicants were not deprived of an opportunity to submit arguments against their expulsion and did not make any claim of persecution risks in their country of origin. No collective expulsion under Article 4 Protocol 4 has been established.
Similarly, no violation of Article 4 Protocol 4 in conjunction with Article 13 has been established, as the claim cannot be considered...
Date: 24-03-2020
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 Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Effective remedy (right to), Final decision, Refugee Status
In order to guarantee that an applicant for international protection has an effective judicial remedy within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter, a national court or tribunal is required to vary a decision of the first-instance determining body that does not comply with its previous judgment. The court or tribunal must substitute its own decision on the application for international protection by disapplying, if necessary, the national law that prohibits it from proceeding in that way.
Date: 29-07-2019
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 Applicant: Kosovo
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Family unity (right to), Personal circumstances of applicant, Return
It is necessary to make a proportionality assessment with consideration of both the gravity of the crime committed by the applicant and the interests of society, and the applicant’s individual rights, particularly his right to private and family life under Article 8.
The Federal Administrative Court failed to fully assess the impact that the measure of removal would have on the applicant. The evolution of the applicant's conduct since the occurrence of the crime, the applicant’s deteriorating medical condition, and his social, cultural and...
Date: 09-04-2019
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Country of origin information, Internal protection, Personal circumstances of applicant, Personal interview, Relevant Facts, Safe country of origin
The applicants’ personal circumstances and the general conditions in the country of origin have to be taken into account, when assessing whether an internal flight alternative exists. Relevant sources like the UNHCR guidelines have to be used. Otherwise this constitutes a significant procedural error.
Date: 13-12-2018
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Dublin Transfer, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Reception conditions, Responsibility for examining application, Trafficking in human beings, Vulnerable person
As a result of a transfer order to Italian authorities joined with house arrest, the applicant lodged an appeal. She argued she would be at risk of being exposed to inhuman and degrading treatments, as well as to systemic lapses of the Italian asylum system. In this case, the administrative tribunal granted annulment of those orders issued by the prefect of la Haute-Garonne in the light of the current Italian asylum conditions and the reasons motivating the applicant to reach France after having stayed in Italy.
Date: 09-11-2018
Country of Applicant: France, Morocco
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Country of origin information, Detention, Effective access to procedures, Real risk, Relevant Documentation, Relevant Facts, Return, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Safe country of origin, Terrorism
After being notified of his return decision, set to take place on the same day, the applicant requested an interim measure on Article 3 ECHR grounds in the morning but was nonetheless expelled to Morocco in the afternoon. The Court found no violation of Article 3, regarding the applicant’s expulsion to Morocco, by taking into account subsequent information. It found a violation of Article 34 of the Convention, owing to the fact that the applicant had no sufficient time to file a request to the Court, hence running the risk back then of being potentially subjected to treatment prohibited...
Date: 19-07-2018
Country of Decision: Italy
Country of Applicant: Senegal
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Individual assessment, Personal interview, Procedural guarantees, Refugee Status
In the lack of audiovisual recording of the interview, the Judge must set the appearance hearing, otherwise being the decree issued null and void for the breach of the adversarial principle.
Date: 27-06-2018
Country of Decision: Sweden
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Individual assessment, Individual threat, Internal protection, Protection, Real risk
The applicant appealed the Migration Court’s decision to dismiss his application for asylum on grounds of the availability of an internal protection alternative in the applicants home country of Afghanistan.
The Migration Court of Appeal granted the appeal as it was held that the question of internal protection can only be assessed after the court has made an individual assessment of the original grounds for protection invoked by the applicant.
Date: 19-06-2018
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
- National Case law 190
- ECrtHR Case law 14
- CJEU Case law 10
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Assessment of facts and circumstances filterAssessment of facts and circumstances
- Credibility assessment 59
- Country of origin information 49
- Individual assessment 41
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 41
- Subsidiary Protection 39
- Personal circumstances of applicant 38
- Well-founded fear 32
- Refugee Status 30
- Internal protection 29
- Membership of a particular social group 29
- Real risk 29
- Effective remedy (right to) 26
- Procedural guarantees 24
- Burden of proof 23
- Relevant Facts 22
- Persecution (acts of) 21
- Relevant Documentation 21
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 17
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 17
- Country of origin 16
- Political Opinion 16
- Return 15
- Standard of proof 15
- Obligation to give reasons 14
- Previous persecution 14
- Protection 14
- Serious harm 14
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 13
- Religion 13
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 12
- Effective access to procedures 12
- Responsibility for examining application 12
- Subsequent application 12
- Torture 12
- Dublin Transfer 11
- Non-refoulement 11
- Benefit of doubt 10
- Detention 10
- Gender Based Persecution 10
- Personal interview 10
- Best interest of the child 8
- Child Specific Considerations 8
- Nationality 8
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 8
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 8
- Sexual orientation 8
- Unaccompanied minor 8
- Accelerated procedure 7
- Actors of protection 7
- Safe third country 7
- Duty of applicant 6
- Inadmissible application 6
- Indiscriminate violence 6
- Individual threat 6
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 6
- Refugee sur place 6
- Request to take back 6
- Circumstances ceased to exist 5
- Delay 5
- Family member 5
- Family unity (right to) 5
- Final decision 5
- First country of asylum 5
- Humanitarian considerations 5
- Internal armed conflict 5
- Discrimination 4
- Exclusion from protection 4
- Manifestly unfounded application 4
- Race 4
- Reception conditions 4
- Revocation of protection status 4
- Safe country of origin 4
- Vulnerable person 4
- Cessation of protection 3
- Country of former habitual residence 3
- Crime against humanity 3
- Dependant (Dependent person) 3
- Family reunification 3
- Female genital mutilation 3
- Material reception conditions 3
- Stateless person 3
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 2
- Armed conflict 2
- Indirect refoulement 2
- Serious non-political crime 2
- Terrorism 2
- Trafficking in human beings 2
- Access to the labour market 1
- Accommodation centre 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Integration measures 1
- More favourable provisions 1
- Residence document 1
- Sponsor 1
- Visa 1
- War crimes 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 25
- Nigeria 16
- Iran 12
- Iraq 12
- Russia 10
- Congo (DRC) 9
- Somalia 9
- Syria 9
- Pakistan 6
- Sri Lanka 6
- Turkey 6
- Unknown 6
- Eritrea 5
- Ethiopia 5
- Russia (Chechnya) 5
- Rwanda 5
- Cameroon 4
- China 3
- Guinea 3
- Ivory Coast 3
- Kosovo 3
- Lebanon 3
- Morocco 3
- Sudan 3
- Albania 2
- Angola 2
- Azerbaijan 2
- Burundi 2
- Gambia 2
- Kazakhstan 2
- Palestinian Territory 2
- Tunisia 2
- Ukraine 2
- United Kingdom 2
- Bangladesh 1
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
- Burkina Faso 1
- Central African Republic 1
- Cuba 1
- Egypt 1
- France 1
- Gabon 1
- Ghana 1
- Haiti 1
- India 1
- Israel 1
- Mauritania 1
- Mongolia 1
- Namibia 1
- Nepal 1
- Niger 1
- North Korea 1
- Senegal 1
- Sierra Leone 1
- South Korea 1
- Togo 1
- Uganda 1
- Uzbekistan 1
- Vietnam 1
Filter by country of decision
- France 22
- Germany 22
- Belgium 19
- United Kingdom 18
- Czech Republic 15
- Ireland 13
- Austria 10
- Hungary 10
- Denmark 9
- Netherlands 8
- Slovenia 7
- Finland 6
- Italy 6
- Sweden 6
- Greece 5
- Spain 5
- Poland 3
- Switzerland 3
- Slovakia 2
- Cyprus 1
