You are here

Home › Political Opinion › Serious harm ›

EDAL case summaries

ECtHR- A.E. v. Greece ( Application no 46673/10), 27 February 2015

Country of Applicant: Turkey
Keywords: Detention, Health (right to), Material reception conditions, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Political Opinion, Reception conditions, Refugee Status, Serious harm, Subsidiary Protection, Torture, Well-founded fear

In this judgement, the Court held that there was a violation of article 3 of the Convention concerning the detention conditions of the applicant at the premises of the executive subcommittee of the Thessaloniki foreign police. There was also a violation of article 5 para 1 (f) concerning the duration of his detention and para 4 with regards to the judicial review of his detention. 
Date: 27-02-2015

Greece - Athens Court of Appeal, 25 April 2013, Application No. 57/2013

Country of Decision: Greece
Country of Applicant: Turkey
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Country of origin information, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Political Opinion, Real risk, Serious harm, Torture, Well-founded fear

Application from the Turkish Authorities to have the Greek Judicial Authorities issue an extradition notice against A.F., a Turkish citizen seeking asylum in Greece.

The Court ruled against the Turkish Authorities' extradition request, deciding that if the person in question were extradited to Turkey there would be a risk that her situation would be made worse because of her political beliefs and because of her pending application to have her refugee status recognised by the Greek state.
Date: 25-04-2013

Ireland - High Court, 25 June 2012, W.A. [DRC] v Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General, [2012] IEHC 251

Country of Decision: Ireland
Country of Applicant: Congo (DRC)
Keywords: Individual assessment, Credibility assessment, Previous persecution, Actor of persecution or serious harm, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Protection, Refugee sur place, Subsidiary Protection, Individual threat, Political Opinion, Serious harm, Non-refoulement, Procedural guarantees

This case concerned the assessment and reason given that the Applicant had not been subjected to “serious harm” in the past, in circumstances where the decision was unclear as to whether the finding was to the effect that his account was not believed, or whether, if believed, the harm was not inflicted by persons who were "actors of serious harm". The Court also considered the definition of “actors of serious harm.” Thirdly, the Court considered whether the decision-maker ignored the specific claim made in the application that returned asylum seekers face a risk of detention,...
Date: 25-06-2012

Germany - High Administrative Court Hessen, 25 August 2011, 8 A 1657/10.A

Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Political Opinion, Subsidiary Protection, Serious harm, Individual threat, Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict, Internal protection, Personal circumstances of applicant, Subsequent application

The applicant was eligible for subsidiary protection as an internal armed conflict is taking place in Logar. The applicant, in case of return to Afghanistan, could not relocate to Kabul, since he could not secure his livelihood there. In order to secure his livelihood, he could not rely on property which his family had possessed in the province of Logar.
Date: 25-08-2011

Finland - Helsinki Administrative Court, 29 June 2010, 10/0868/1

Country of Decision: Finland
Country of Applicant: Iran
Keywords: Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Religion, Political Opinion, Subsidiary Protection, Serious harm, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Credibility assessment, Refugee sur place

The applicant, from Iran, claimed asylum based on his political opinion and religious belief (the applicant converted from Islam to Christianity on arrival in Finland). Refugee status was refused as the applicant failed to establish that he had come to the attention of the authorities through political activities or religious practices. A residence permit was granted based on subsidiary protection. The Court relied on the applicant’s conversion to Christianity, evidence of harassment of Christians in Iran and the overall deteriorating human rights situation.
Date: 29-06-2010

Filter by case summary type

Filter by applicable legal provisions

Filter by date

Filter by country of applicant

Filter by country of decision