You are here
Home › Duty of applicant ›EDAL case summaries
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Accommodation centre, Best interest of the child, Duty of applicant, Material reception conditions, Reception conditions, Unaccompanied minor, Vulnerable person
A sanction imposed in response of serious breaches of the rules of the accommodation centre or of seriously violent behaviour on behalf of an applicant for international protection cannot include withdrawal of material reception conditions relating to housing, food or clothing, even if it is temporary. Authorities should take into particular consideration any such sanction in cases of vulnerable applicants and unaccompanied minors.
Date: 12-11-2019
Country of Decision: Switzerland
Country of Applicant: Eritrea
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, Credibility assessment, Duty of applicant, Obligation to give reasons, Personal interview, Relevant Documentation, Relevant Facts, Standard of proof, Unaccompanied minor
When deciding upon an asylum applicant’s age, authorities should assess the evidence in a holistic way, and not rely solely on medical examinations of the applicant. If, in the absence of sufficient evidence, authorities conclude that the applicant is an adult, they need to justify their decision by reference to the grounds for its conclusion.
Date: 04-03-2019
Country of Decision: Greece
Country of Applicant: Pakistan
Keywords: Detention, Duty of applicant, Obligation/Duty to cooperate, Refugee Status
The continuation of detention beyond the period of 90 days, while the appeal against the decision rejecting the asylum application was still pending, is a disproportionate measure of deprivation of liberty for the applicant. Alternative measures must be considered.
Date: 17-12-2018
Country of Applicant: Albania, Armenia, Guinea, Kenya, Nigeria, Russia, Uganda
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Dependant (Dependent person), Duty of applicant, Family member, Individual assessment, Return
Requests for family reunification must be examined even if the third-country national, who is a family member of an EU citizen who has never exercised his right of freedom of movement, is subject to an entry ban. Whether there is a relationship of dependency between the third-country national and the EU citizen and whether public policy grounds justify the entry ban must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Date: 08-05-2018
Country of Decision: Denmark
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Burden of proof, Duty of applicant, Relevant Documentation, Relevant Facts, Subsidiary Protection
The complainant is a Sunni Muslim from Mogadishu, Somalia. In July 2015 the Danish Immigration Service decided that his subsidiary protection status under the Danish Aliens Act. Art. 7 (2) had lapsed according to the Danish Aliens Act Art. 17 (1) and (4). The Refugee Appeals Board did not consider that the Danish Immigrations Service had lifted its burden of proof according to the Danish Aliens Act Art 17 (4). Consequently, the Board granted the complainant continued subsidiary protection under the Danish Aliens Act Art. 7 (2).
Date: 01-12-2017
Country of Decision: Belgium
Country of Applicant: Albania
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, Circumstances ceased to exist, Country of origin, Duty of applicant, Exclusion from protection, Gender Based Persecution, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Obligation to give reasons, Personal circumstances of applicant, Previous persecution, Well-founded fear
An asylum applicant who was a victim of previous persecution in their country of origin can be granted refugee status under article 1, C 5) of the Geneva Convention. This is because, due to the severity of the treatment applied, the applicant’s fear is exacerbated to such an extent that, even if the persecution has ceased to exist, a return to the country of origin would be unthinkable.
Date: 17-08-2017
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
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Country of origin information, Duty of applicant, Political Opinion, Refugee Status, Religion, Subsidiary Protection, Torture
When deciding whether refugee status should be available , one must not only consider any pre-persecution but also post-flight circumstances. Judged on a forward looking basis of persecution of political enemies within Syrian territory, upon return to Syria there continues to be a danger of individual persecution including human rights violations by reason of belonging to a certain group.
Date: 07-10-2016
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Sri Lanka
Keywords: Duty of applicant, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Manifestly unfounded application, Procedural guarantees
The lower court had erred in law by judging that the administration need not justify having informed the applicant about the possibility to communicate with a representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
Date: 08-06-2016
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Actor of persecution or serious harm, Burden of proof, Credibility assessment, Detention, Duty of applicant, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Individual threat, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Persecution (acts of), Real risk, Refugee Status, Relevant Documentation, Relevant Facts, Standard of proof, Subsequent application, Well-founded fear
The Court found a violation of Article 3 in relation to a subsequent application for asylum, which had been rejected on the basis that it contained no new elements indicating that the Applicants ran a real risk of being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment on deportation to Russia. Because new information had in fact been provided, the national authorities were under an obligation to thoroughly review the information in order to assure themselves that the Applicants’ rights under Article 3 would be safeguarded.
Date: 19-01-2016
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Duty of applicant filterDuty of applicant
- Credibility assessment 10
- Burden of proof 8
- Refugee Status 8
- Relevant Documentation 8
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 7
- Standard of proof 6
- Well-founded fear 6
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 5
- Personal circumstances of applicant 5
- Procedural guarantees 5
- Real risk 5
- Relevant Facts 5
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 4
- Obligation to give reasons 4
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 4
- Country of origin information 3
- Detention 3
- Dublin Transfer 3
- Effective remedy (right to) 3
- Individual assessment 3
- Personal interview 3
- Religion 3
- Subsidiary Protection 3
- Benefit of doubt 2
- Best interest of the child 2
- Circumstances ceased to exist 2
- Country of origin 2
- Effective access to procedures 2
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 2
- Persecution (acts of) 2
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 2
- Previous persecution 2
- Protection 2
- Responsibility for examining application 2
- Return 2
- Subsequent application 2
- Torture 2
- Unaccompanied minor 2
- Vulnerable person 2
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Access to the labour market 1
- Accommodation centre 1
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 1
- Armed conflict 1
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Death penalty / Execution 1
- Delay 1
- Dependant (Dependent person) 1
- Discrimination 1
- Exclusion from protection 1
- Family member 1
- Freedom of movement (right to) 1
- Gender Based Persecution 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- Indiscriminate violence 1
- Individual threat 1
- Internal protection 1
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 1
- Manifestly unfounded application 1
- Material reception conditions 1
- Membership of a particular social group 1
- More favourable provisions 1
- Nationality 1
- Non-refoulement 1
- Political Opinion 1
- Reception conditions 1
- Refugee sur place 1
- Request to take back 1
- Revocation of protection status 1
- Serious harm 1
- Sexual orientation 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Russia 4
- Nigeria 3
- Somalia 3
- Afghanistan 2
- Albania 2
- Pakistan 2
- Sri Lanka 2
- Armenia 1
- Bangladesh 1
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
- Cameroon 1
- Congo (DRC) 1
- Eritrea 1
- Guinea 1
- Iran 1
- Kenya 1
- North Korea 1
- Russia (Chechnya) 1
- South Korea 1
- Syria 1
- Tanzania 1
- Togo 1
- Turkey 1
- Uganda 1
- Unknown 1
Filter by country of decision
- Greece 4
- Germany 3
- Belgium 2
- France 2
- Ireland 2
- Italy 2
- Slovenia 2
- United Kingdom 2
- Austria 1
- Denmark 1
- Netherlands 1
- Poland 1
- Spain 1
- Switzerland 1
