You are here
Home › Nationality ›EDAL case summaries
The ECtHR ruled that the detention of a Syrian national was unlawful as his return to Syria was impracticable, which the authorities should have known at that time. It was incumbent on the domestic authorities to consider alternative measures in respect of the applicant. The applicant did not have the benefit of an examination of the lawfulness of his detention to a sufficient degree. Therefore, there was a violation of Articles 5(1) and (4) ECHR.
The ECtHR also ruled that his detention at the Zografou police station led to a violation of his...
The applicant, a stateless Palestinian and a Sunni Muslim from Baghdad, had been threatened by a Shia Militia working with or for the Ministry of Interior.
Based on the coherent, logical and consistent account in accordance with the current country of origin information the Board found the applicant exposed to persecution by the authorities or persecution supported by the authorities.
The applicant was granted refugee status under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (1).
The ECtHR found the detention of a homosexual asylum seeker in Hungary was arbitrary, in violation of Article 5(1) ECHR. In particular, the Court found that the Hungarian authorities had failed to make an individualised assessment and to take into account the applicant’s vulnerability in the detention facility based on his sexual orientation. The Court emphasised that the authorities should exercise special care when deciding on deprivation of liberty in order to avoid situations which may reproduce the plight that forced asylum seekers to flee in the first place.
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 Appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal on the ground that he qualified for subsidiary protection under Article 2(e) and (f) of the Qualification Directive and was therefore entitled to a residence permit under Article 24(2) of the Qualification Directive.
In dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal found that: (a) Article 24 of the Qualification Directive does not confer a substantive right of residence in the member state concerned but rather its function is to determine the modalities whereby a right of residence otherwise existing is to be documented, and (b) the Procedures...
The ECtHR holds that Russia is in violation of Article 5 ECHR and of Article 4 of Protocol 4 through the implementation of an unlawful administrative practice against a large number of Georgian nationals as a means of identifying them. This led to the arrest, detention and collective expulsion of 4634 Georgians from the Russian Federation and further violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.
This case concerns Art. 23 of Directive 2005/85/EC and the possibility of prioritising the processing of asylum applications by persons belonging to a certain category defined on the basis of nationality or country of origin. The case also deals with the right to an effective judicial remedy under Art. 39 of Directive 2005/85/EC and the concept of ‘court or Tribunal’ within the meaning of that article.
The Applicants' applications for asylum were rejected as they did not tell the truth about their former residence(s) before moving to Belgium, and it could therefore not be ruled out that they were also nationals of or enjoyed protection status in another country. However, they could not be deported to Afghanistan, even though it was at least established that they were Afghan nationals.
When the asylum claim of an applicant has not been individually assessed, the National Court of Asylum has to cancel the asylum refusal decision and the asylum claim has to be reassessed by the OFPRA.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Nationality filterNationality
- Country of origin 10
- Persecution (acts of) 9
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 8
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 8
- Effective remedy (right to) 6
- Well-founded fear 6
- Discrimination 5
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 5
- Race 5
- Country of former habitual residence 4
- Country of origin information 4
- Detention 4
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 4
- Political Opinion 4
- Protection 4
- Stateless person 4
- Armed conflict 3
- Burden of proof 3
- Credibility assessment 3
- Family unity (right to) 3
- Humanitarian considerations 3
- Real risk 3
- Refugee Status 3
- Relevant Documentation 3
- Relevant Facts 3
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 2
- Crime against humanity 2
- Final decision 2
- First country of asylum 2
- Gender Based Persecution 2
- Individual assessment 2
- Internal protection 2
- International armed conflict 2
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 2
- Membership of a particular social group 2
- Non-refoulement 2
- Personal circumstances of applicant 2
- Religion 2
- Return 2
- Torture 2
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 1
- Actors of protection 1
- Best interest of the child 1
- Cessation of protection 1
- Circumstances ceased to exist 1
- Delay 1
- Dublin Transfer 1
- Duty of applicant 1
- Effective access to procedures 1
- Family member 1
- Family reunification 1
- Female genital mutilation 1
- Freedom of movement (right to) 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Indirect refoulement 1
- Manifestly unfounded application 1
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 1
- Obligation to give reasons 1
- Previous persecution 1
- Procedural guarantees 1
- Reception conditions 1
- Request to take back 1
- Residence document 1
- Responsibility for examining application 1
- Safe third country 1
- Serious harm 1
- Serious non-political crime 1
- Sexual orientation 1
- Subsidiary Protection 1
- Vulnerable person 1
- War crimes 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Syria 4
- Ethiopia 3
- Somalia 3
- Bhutan 2
- Cyprus 2
- Kosovo 2
- Turkey 2
- Afghanistan 1
- Bangladesh 1
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
- Eritrea 1
- Georgia 1
- Iran 1
- Iraq 1
- Israel 1
- Kazakhstan 1
- Liberia 1
- Malawi 1
- Nigeria 1
- North Korea 1
- Palestinian Territory 1
- Philippines 1
- South Korea 1
- United Kingdom 1
Filter by country of decision
- United Kingdom 6
- Belgium 4
- France 3
- Czech Republic 2
- Hungary 2
- Netherlands 2
- Denmark 1
- Greece 1
- Spain 1