EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Ukraine
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Country of origin information, Individual assessment, Internal protection, Obligation to give reasons, Persecution (acts of), Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Personal circumstances of applicant, Political Opinion, Refugee Status, Relevant Facts, Subsidiary Protection
In the course of an asylum procedure, the statements of the asylum seeker have to be assessed integrally. This includes, inter alia, an analysis of (up-to-date) country reports. However, such analysis is not carried out in a sufficient manner where there are only superficial references to the country of origin information. Rather, it is required that the information contained is actually taken into consideration when taking the decision, applied to the specific circumstances of each case and compared to the information provided by the asylum seeker(s).
... Date: 17-11-2016
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Country of origin information, Final decision, Individual assessment, Membership of a particular social group, Obligation to give reasons, Sexual orientation, Subsequent application
This case involved a violation of the right to equal treatment of foreigners as a result of a rejection of the application for international protection and expulsion of the homosexual Applicant to Nigeria because of a failure by the decision-maker to make its own country determinations and to thoroughly examine the situation of homosexuals in Nigeria.
Date: 16-09-2013
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Uzbekistan
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Credibility assessment, Obligation to give reasons, Personal interview, Procedural guarantees
There has been a violation of Article 47 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union if there is a failure to hold a hearing at the Asylum Court, notwithstanding that the facts of the case are not sufficiently clear. Merely general statements without reference to the case in point do not represent sufficient grounds for the lack of credibility of the submission.
Date: 13-03-2013
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Gender Based Persecution, Internal protection, Obligation to give reasons, Personal circumstances of applicant, Subsidiary Protection, Unaccompanied minor
The Applicant, an unaccompanied Afghan minor, stated that he had left his home country owing to his abduction and the threat of sexual abuse by the local ruler. The right to a decision by the statutory judge was violated by the fact that the decision on the application for international protection was made by a court panel consisting of two judges, one male and one female.
Date: 12-03-2013
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application, Obligation to give reasons, Procedural guarantees
A decision to transfer the applicant to Italy, solely based on Italy’s failure to respond to a request to take back the applicant, was insufficient, arbitrary and violated the applicant’s right to equal treatment. The Asylum Court had neither listed any criteria of the Dublin II Regulation that would indicate that Italy was responsible nor addressed the issues concerning the travel route of the applicant and his long stay in Greece.
Date: 27-06-2012
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Child Specific Considerations, Humanitarian considerations, Dublin Transfer, Responsibility for examining application, Obligation to give reasons, Family unity (right to), Unaccompanied minor
The decision to expel an orphaned minor to Poland when he had a legal guardian in Austria gave rise to a real risk of a violation of Art 8 ECHR. The Asylum Court made its decision without providing clear reasons. The applicant’s family ties in the home country and in Austria must be considered, regardless of the duration of the applicant’s stay in Austria. The sovereignty clause must be applied when there is a real risk of a violation of Art 8 ECHR.
Date: 11-06-2012
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: Inadmissible application, Dublin Transfer, Request that charge be taken, Responsibility for examining application, Obligation to give reasons, Procedural guarantees, Family unity (right to)
The fact that Poland agreed to take charge of the asylum procedure of a whole family is, by itself, not a proper basis for an inadmissibility decision. The hierarchy of the criteria for determining the Member State responsible for the procedure on the merits, set out in Art 5(1) Dublin II Regulation, must be respected. In this case the husband and father of the family had already been admitted to the procedure on the merits and, therefore, Art 8 was applicable prior to Art 14.
Date: 27-04-2009
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Obligation to give reasons filterObligation to give reasons
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 4
- Dublin Transfer 3
- Procedural guarantees 3
- Responsibility for examining application 3
- Country of origin information 2
- Family unity (right to) 2
- Individual assessment 2
- Internal protection 2
- Personal circumstances of applicant 2
- Subsidiary Protection 2
- Unaccompanied minor 2
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Credibility assessment 1
- Final decision 1
- Gender Based Persecution 1
- Humanitarian considerations 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- Membership of a particular social group 1
- Persecution (acts of) 1
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 1
- Personal interview 1
- Political Opinion 1
- Refugee Status 1
- Relevant Facts 1
- Request that charge be taken 1
- Request to take back 1
- Sexual orientation 1
- Subsequent application 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 2
- Nigeria 1
- Russia 1
- Russia (Chechnya) 1
- Ukraine 1
- Uzbekistan 1
Filter by country of decision
- (-) Remove Austria filterAustria
