You are here
Home › Personal interview ›EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Delay, Effective remedy (right to), Personal interview, Procedural guarantees
The Federal Administrative Court has to clarify whether the petition for action directed solely at the obligation to decide on the asylum application is admissible. The question if it is also possible to directly oblige the defendant to grant international protection or to establish prohibitions on deportation by means of an action is not the subject of the decision. As a result, the court comes to the conclusion that there was a delay by the respondent of providing the decision on the asylum application without sufficient reason and that the plaintiff has a need for...
Date: 11-07-2018
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Exclusion from protection, Personal interview, Procedural guarantees
The Council of State annulled the decision from the French national court on asylum (CNDA) after noting it had not examined the applicant’s submission that he did not have access to an interpreter during his personal interview for a re-examination of his asylum application. He had indeed appealed against the decision of the French immigration authorities (OFPRA) rejecting his claim despite his inability to be understood.
Date: 11-04-2018
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Morocco
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Detention, Personal interview, Unaccompanied minor, Vulnerable person
The competent authority has to respect as legally binding a court order that determines a certain date of birth and thereby the minority of an applicant. This is also the case if the applicant himself indicates another (earlier) date of birth.
The personal interview of a minor without his legal representative constitutes a significant procedural violation. The facts are presumed to not be ascertained. The competent authority has to ascertain the facts and circumstances once again.
Date: 19-10-2017
Country of Applicant: Mali
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Manifestly unfounded application, Personal interview
If an application for protection has been heard at first instance and the applicant there had the opportunity of a full examination including a personal interview and was given a transcript or report of the interview; and if it was there determined that the application is manifestly unfounded; then EU asylum law in particular Directive 2013/32/EU allows the national court or tribunal to dismiss an appeal without allowing the applicant a further opportunity to be heard.
However, a hearing may be conducted if the court hearing the appeal considers it necessary for the purpose of...
Date: 26-07-2017
Country of Applicant: Rwanda
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Individual assessment, Personal interview, Procedural guarantees, Subsidiary Protection
The right to be heard does not require, as a rule, that, where national legislation provides for two separate procedures for examining applications for refugee status and applications for subsidiary protection, the applicant for subsidiary protection is to have the right to an interview relating to his application and the right to call or cross-examine witnesses when that interview takes place. However, an interview must be arranged where specific circumstances render it necessary in order to examine an application with full knowledge of the facts.
Date: 09-02-2017
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Pakistan
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Inadmissible application, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Personal interview, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Safe third country, Subsequent application
1. An application for asylum lodged in Germany only qualifies as a subsequent application within the meaning of section 71a of the Asylum Act, interpreted in conformity with the constitution, if the first asylum procedure in a country that is generally determined to be a safe third country has actually been conducted in compliance with the 1951 Refugee Convention as well as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
This is not the case, where, at the time of the decision, there have been systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedures of the third country which have put the...
Date: 19-01-2017
Country of Decision: Hungary
Country of Applicant: Iraq
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Personal interview, Procedural guarantees, Request to take back
The Office of Immigration and Nationality issued a decision on the responsibility of the Republic of Bulgaria under the Dublin III Regulation, without having informed the Applicant about the applicability of the Regulation in his case. The Court quashed the decision and declared the Applicant’s right to be heard was not respected.
Date: 10-10-2016
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Comoros
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Effective access to procedures, Personal interview, Procedural guarantees, Vulnerable person
Asserting a violation of the procedural rules by the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (‘OFPRA’) when a child’s legal representative or any ad hoc administrator was absent from a hearing, the National Court of Asylum (‘CNDA’) annulled OFPRA’s decision and sent the case back to it to be decided again under the correct circumstances.
The CNDA sets out the limits to the principle of family unity in such as it is not applicable to the child of a refugee, the refugee having obtained that status only through application of the said principle following her...
Date: 05-10-2016
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Congo (DRC)
Keywords: Detention, Dublin Transfer, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Personal interview, Request to take back
The applicant had sufficiently established that if returned to Hungary under the Dublin Regulation he would not benefit from an examination of his asylum application in line with procedural guarantees as required by the right to asylum. Such a transfer decision thus violated Article 4 of the Charter.
Date: 27-09-2016
Country of Decision: Switzerland
Country of Applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Country of origin information, Credibility assessment, Gender Based Persecution, Personal circumstances of applicant, Personal interview, Trafficking in human beings
In cases of reasonable suspicion that a person applying for asylum was a victim of human trafficking, the Swiss State Secretary for Migration is obliged to clarify the facts thoroughly on its own initiative.
Date: 18-07-2016
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Personal interview filterPersonal interview
- Procedural guarantees 26
- Effective remedy (right to) 18
- Effective access to procedures 15
- Credibility assessment 13
- Refugee Status 9
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 8
- Dublin Transfer 8
- Country of origin information 7
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 7
- Subsidiary Protection 6
- Burden of proof 5
- Detention 5
- Individual assessment 5
- Personal circumstances of applicant 5
- Relevant Documentation 5
- Relevant Facts 5
- Well-founded fear 5
- Gender Based Persecution 4
- Manifestly unfounded application 4
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 4
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 4
- Political Opinion 4
- Accelerated procedure 3
- Internal protection 3
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 3
- Membership of a particular social group 3
- Request to take back 3
- Return 3
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 3
- Subsequent application 3
- Vulnerable person 3
- Benefit of doubt 2
- Child Specific Considerations 2
- Country of origin 2
- Delay 2
- Duty of applicant 2
- Family member 2
- Family reunification 2
- Humanitarian considerations 2
- Material reception conditions 2
- Obligation to give reasons 2
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 2
- Real risk 2
- Religion 2
- Safe country of origin 2
- Safe third country 2
- Serious harm 2
- Torture 2
- Unaccompanied minor 2
- Accommodation centre 1
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 1
- Best interest of the child 1
- Discrimination 1
- Exclusion from protection 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- Non-refoulement 1
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 1
- Persecution (acts of) 1
- Previous persecution 1
- Reception conditions 1
- Refugee sur place 1
- Residence document 1
- Responsibility for examining application 1
- Sexual orientation 1
- Standard of proof 1
- Trafficking in human beings 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 5
- Iran 5
- Russia 4
- Bangladesh 3
- Pakistan 3
- Somalia 3
- Iraq 2
- Nigeria 2
- Rwanda 2
- South Africa 2
- Algeria 1
- Angola 1
- Armenia 1
- Brazil 1
- Burkina Faso 1
- China 1
- Comoros 1
- Congo (DRC) 1
- Eritrea 1
- Ethiopia 1
- France 1
- Kosovo 1
- Mali 1
- Moldova 1
- Morocco 1
- Sudan 1
- Tanzania 1
- Ukraine 1
- Unknown 1
- Uzbekistan 1
- Vietnam 1
Filter by country of decision
- France 10
- Austria 9
- Ireland 6
- Greece 4
- Hungary 4
- Germany 3
- Finland 2
- Slovakia 2
- Slovenia 2
- Czech Republic 1
- Italy 1
- Sweden 1
- Switzerland 1
- United Kingdom 1
