EDAL case summaries
In this case, the Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal against a High Court Judgment in which the Refugee Appeals Tribunal was found to have erred in law in its approach to determining persecution. The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal on the basis that the tribunal member’s finding of no risk of persecution was not unreasonable (within the applicable standards of judicial review) and that the High Court was incorrect in finding that the extent of educational discrimination at issue in this case met the threshold of persecution required.
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).
...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.
The judgment concerns the status of military deserters under the Qualification Directive (2004/83/EC) and the definition to be accorded to persecutory acts following on from a refusal to perform military service. Whilst the definition of military service is to include support staff the CJEU has held that there must be a sufficient link between the asylum seeker’s actions and the preparation or eventual commission of war crimes.
The individual must establish with sufficient plausibility that his unit is highly likely to commit war...
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Persecution (acts of) filterPersecution (acts of)
- (-) Remove Relevant Facts filterRelevant Facts
- Discrimination 3
- Political Opinion 3
- Country of origin information 2
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 2
- Refugee Status 2
- Well-founded fear 2
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 1
- Armed conflict 1
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 1
- Burden of proof 1
- Credibility assessment 1
- Detention 1
- Duty of applicant 1
- Education (right to) 1
- Effective access to procedures 1
- Effective remedy (right to) 1
- Humanitarian considerations 1
- Individual assessment 1
- Individual threat 1
- Internal protection 1
- International armed conflict 1
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 1
- Obligation to give reasons 1
- Personal circumstances of applicant 1
- Race 1
- Real risk 1
- Relevant Documentation 1
- Standard of proof 1
- Subsequent application 1
- Subsidiary Protection 1
- War crimes 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Iran 1
- Russia 1
- Serbia 1
- Ukraine 1
- United States 1