You are here
Home › Credibility assessment ›EDAL case summaries
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Credibility assessment, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Membership of a particular social group, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Sexual orientation
National authorities can order experts’ reports with the purpose of assisting in the assessment of the facts and circumstances relating to a declared sexual orientation of an applicant, provided that the procedures for these reports are consistent with fundamental rights. However, the examining authority, courts or tribunal must not base their decision solely on the conclusions of an expert’s report and are not bound by these conclusions when assessing the applicant’s statements relating to his or her sexual orientation.
Moreover, national...
Date: 25-01-2018
Country of Applicant: Sierra Leone
Keywords: Credibility assessment, Discrimination, Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manifestly unfounded application, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Refugee Status, Safe country of origin, Sexual orientation
The applicant, a national from Sierra Leone who claimed asylum in Switzerland on the grounds of persecution owing to his homosexuality, is found not to be at risk of treatment prohibited under Article 3 of the Convention in case of return to his country of origin. In substance, the Court recalls that national authorities are in the best position to carry out this risk assessment and recalls the UNHCR Guiding Principles on asylum claims based on sexual orientation, which require the evaluation of the risk through individual assessment, in addition to the examination of the country’s...
Date: 18-01-2018
Country of Applicant: Iraq
Keywords: Child Specific Considerations, Credibility assessment, Detention, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
The ECtHR reviewed if the detention of a family with three children in a border police’s detention facility would be considered as a breach of Article 3 ECHR.
Date: 07-12-2017
Country of Decision: Denmark
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Country of origin information, Credibility assessment, Relevant Facts, Revocation of protection status, Subsidiary Protection
The complainant is an ethnic Galadi and a Muslim from Afgoye, Somalia. On 6 April 2017, the Danish Immigration Service decided not to prolong the complainant’s subsidiary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 11 (2), cf. Art. 19 (1) no. 1 and Art. 19 (7) cf. Art. 26 (1).
After an overall assessment of the country of origin information the Board found that a deportation of the complainant to Afgoye no longer constitutes a violation of Denmark’s international obligations including ECHR article 3. However, regarding the assessment under the Aliens Act article 26, the Board found...
Date: 01-12-2017
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Iran
Keywords: Credibility assessment, Religion
The court gave guidance on the application of a structured approach to credibility assessment.
Date: 22-11-2017
Country of Decision: Switzerland
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Country of origin information, Credibility assessment, Internal protection, Personal circumstances of applicant
Kabul cannot be considered as a reasonable internal flight alternative for the complainant due to the lack of a sustainable social network for him there and no other particular factors which would enable the applicant's removal . Therefore the complainant does not meet the requirements for a removal to Afghanistan.
Date: 13-10-2017
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Iran
Keywords: Country of origin information, Credibility assessment, Membership of a particular social group, Political Opinion, Religion, Well-founded fear
The appellant claimed that the Tribunals in their determinations had failed to give adequate reasons for their conclusions, in particular that the appellant had not demonstrated well-founded fear. The Court considered the grounds for this claim and found that since we should ‘avoid a requirement of perfection’ (para 26) they were not sufficient to establish that the tribunals had erred, nor that the claimant was at risk of persecution.
Date: 12-10-2017
Country of Applicant: Senegal
Keywords: Country of origin, Credibility assessment, Manifestly unfounded application, Sexual orientation, Well-founded fear
The ECtHR declared inadmissible the complaints brought by a Senegalese national who had unsuccessfully applied for asylum in Spain due to his fear of being persecuted in his country of origin on the grounds of his sexual orientation. The complaints were considered premature since the Audiencia Nacional had annulled the administrative decision rejecting his asylum application and the asylum procedure had started afresh.
Date: 26-09-2017
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Benefit of doubt, Child Specific Considerations, Country of origin information, Credibility assessment, Effective access to procedures, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Real risk, Standard of proof, Well-founded fear
Effective access to justice relies on an individual having a voice in the proceedings concerning him or her. Solely focusing on the credibility of the appellant’s account and not having regard to objective evidence testifying to the appellant’s vulnerability or the risk to the appellant of return to Afghanistan has led to the proceedings being neither fair nor just. A material error of law has therefore been committed.
Date: 27-07-2017
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Sri Lanka
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Benefit of doubt, Credibility assessment, Duty of applicant, Relevant Documentation, Standard of proof
The Tribunal reasserted the decision maker’s duty of confidentiality in considering documents produced in support of a protection claim. Where there is a needed to make an inquiry in the country of origin then written consent must be given by the applicant. Moreover, Article 22 of the Asylum Procedures Directive prohibits direct contact with the alleged actor of persecution. Additionally, the Refugee Convention requires that the authentication of a document is undertaken with a precautionary approach, namely whether an inquiry is necessary or should be framed in a specific manner and...
Date: 19-07-2017
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Credibility assessment filterCredibility assessment
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 58
- Country of origin information 49
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 45
- Subsidiary Protection 42
- Membership of a particular social group 40
- Internal protection 34
- Well-founded fear 32
- Burden of proof 30
- Refugee Status 30
- Relevant Documentation 25
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 24
- Real risk 24
- Persecution (acts of) 23
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 22
- Standard of proof 21
- Religion 20
- Benefit of doubt 19
- Procedural guarantees 19
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 18
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 18
- Personal circumstances of applicant 18
- Political Opinion 18
- Previous persecution 17
- Gender Based Persecution 16
- Effective remedy (right to) 15
- Individual assessment 15
- Obligation to give reasons 15
- Sexual orientation 15
- Child Specific Considerations 14
- Country of origin 14
- Relevant Facts 14
- Individual threat 13
- Personal interview 13
- Serious harm 13
- Torture 13
- Protection 11
- Indiscriminate violence 10
- Refugee sur place 10
- Unaccompanied minor 10
- Duty of applicant 9
- Non-refoulement 9
- Internal armed conflict 8
- Actors of protection 7
- Effective access to procedures 7
- Accelerated procedure 6
- Armed conflict 6
- Discrimination 6
- Humanitarian considerations 6
- Subsequent application 6
- Best interest of the child 5
- Manifestly unfounded application 5
- Safe country of origin 5
- Vulnerable person 5
- Detention 4
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 4
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 4
- Safe third country 4
- Accommodation centre 3
- Exclusion from protection 3
- Female genital mutilation 3
- Nationality 3
- Return 3
- Trafficking in human beings 3
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 2
- Death penalty / Execution 2
- Delay 2
- Family member 2
- Family reunification 2
- Final decision 2
- First country of asylum 2
- Race 2
- Revocation of protection status 2
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 2
- Access to the labour market 1
- Country of former habitual residence 1
- Crime against humanity 1
- Dependant (Dependent person) 1
- Dublin Transfer 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- Reception conditions 1
- Serious non-political crime 1
- War crimes 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Iran 24
- Somalia 22
- Afghanistan 20
- Iraq 15
- Nigeria 12
- Russia 8
- Congo (DRC) 7
- Sudan 6
- Syria 6
- Gambia 5
- Pakistan 4
- Rwanda 4
- Sri Lanka 4
- Bangladesh 3
- Cameroon 3
- Colombia 3
- Guinea 3
- Albania 2
- Algeria 2
- Belarus 2
- China 2
- Eritrea 2
- Libya 2
- Sierra Leone 2
- South Africa 2
- Turkey 2
- Uganda 2
- Angola 1
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
- Burkina Faso 1
- Burundi 1
- Central African Republic 1
- Egypt 1
- Ethiopia 1
- Gabon 1
- Ghana 1
- Ivory Coast 1
- Kazakhstan 1
- Kenya 1
- Kosovo 1
- Kuwait 1
- Lebanon 1
- Mauritania 1
- Mongolia 1
- Nepal 1
- Niger 1
- Russia (Chechnya) 1
- Senegal 1
- Tanzania 1
- Unknown 1
- Uzbekistan 1
- Zimbabwe 1
Filter by country of decision
- Ireland 31
- United Kingdom 17
- Belgium 16
- Sweden 15
- Hungary 13
- Greece 12
- Austria 7
- Germany 7
- Netherlands 6
- Denmark 5
- Finland 5
- Spain 5
- Italy 4
- Poland 4
- Slovakia 4
- Switzerland 4
- Czech Republic 3
- Slovenia 3
- France 2
- Luxembourg 1
