You are here
Home › Safe country of origin ›EDAL case summaries
The fact that an asylum seeker has already been persecuted in the past or has been subject to direct threats of persecution, was considered as a well-founded argument to believe that the applicant would face the risk to be persecuted under Article 1, Section A §2 of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
The applicants’ personal circumstances and the general conditions in the country of origin have to be taken into account, when assessing whether an internal flight alternative exists. Relevant sources like the UNHCR guidelines have to be used. Otherwise this constitutes a significant procedural error.
The Belgian authorities carried out a reasonable assessment, balancing the risk to public safety with the applicant’s mental health, in deciding the applicant’s detention. The duration and medical care provided in detention were lawful and justified.
A Member State cannot rely on the rebuttable presumption under Articles 36 and 37 of the 2013 Asylum Procedures Directive (APD) in respect of the safe country of origin concept and subsequently find the application to be manifestly unfounded in accordance with Article 31(8)(b) without having fully implemented and complied with the procedures under the APD relating to the designation of countries as safe countries of origin.
Moreover, a Member State may not consider an application for asylum as manifestly unfounded under the APD due to the insufficiency of the applicant’s...
After being notified of his return decision, set to take place on the same day, the applicant requested an interim measure on Article 3 ECHR grounds in the morning but was nonetheless expelled to Morocco in the afternoon. The Court found no violation of Article 3, regarding the applicant’s expulsion to Morocco, by taking into account subsequent information. It found a violation of Article 34 of the Convention, owing to the fact that the applicant had no sufficient time to file a request to the Court, hence running the risk back then of being potentially subjected to treatment prohibited...
The applicant, an Algerian national convicted in France for terrorism and banned from entering French territory in 2006, was sent back to Algeria in 2014, on the day he was notified of the rejection of his asylum claim and of the issuance of his return order. The Court found that the French authorities violated Article 34 of the Convention by carrying out the applicant’s transfer despite the Court’s interim measure. It also found that France violated Article 3, in the light of the general information regarding the situation of people suspected of international terrorism in Algeria.
The request submitted by the Italian authorities to Norway to take back the applicant would imply his immediate repatriation to his country of origin, Afghanistan, which, in the light of the Court’s reasoning, is not to be considered a safe country.
The judicial examination of whether subsidiary protection shall be approved requires a thorough assessment of the individual case. This applies in particular for especially vulnerable persons.
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...
If the applicant comes from a “safe” country, they must be able to prove that there is no protection as understood in the 1951 Geneva Convention, otherwise his application will be rejected.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Safe country of origin filterSafe country of origin
- Refugee Status 12
- Credibility assessment 9
- Return 9
- Country of origin information 8
- Effective remedy (right to) 7
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 7
- Real risk 7
- Detention 6
- Well-founded fear 6
- Accelerated procedure 5
- Manifestly unfounded application 5
- Persecution (acts of) 5
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 5
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 4
- Individual assessment 4
- Internal protection 4
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 4
- Protection 4
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 4
- Terrorism 4
- Burden of proof 3
- Country of origin 3
- Discrimination 3
- Membership of a particular social group 3
- Personal interview 3
- Relevant Facts 3
- Child Specific Considerations 2
- Exclusion from protection 2
- Non-refoulement 2
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 2
- Personal circumstances of applicant 2
- Previous persecution 2
- Procedural guarantees 2
- Race 2
- Relevant Documentation 2
- Serious harm 2
- Subsidiary Protection 2
- Vulnerable person 2
- Accommodation centre 1
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 1
- Actors of protection 1
- Best interest of the child 1
- Cessation of protection 1
- Country of former habitual residence 1
- Dependant (Dependent person) 1
- Dublin Transfer 1
- Effective access to procedures 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Gender Based Persecution 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Indirect refoulement 1
- Individual threat 1
- Obligation to give reasons 1
- Reception conditions 1
- Request to take back 1
- Revocation of protection status 1
- Sexual orientation 1
- Torture 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 4
- Algeria 3
- Armenia 2
- France 2
- Ivory Coast 2
- Mongolia 2
- Morocco 2
- Serbia 2
- South Africa 2
- Turkey 2
- Albania 1
- Benin 1
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
- Croatia 1
- Eritrea 1
- Ghana 1
- Guinea 1
- India 1
- Iraq 1
- Jordan 1
- Kosovo 1
- Macedonia 1
- Madagascar 1
- Mali 1
- Palestinian Territory 1
- Russia 1
- Senegal 1
- Sierra Leone 1
- Sri Lanka 1
- Syria 1
- Tanzania 1
- Tunisia 1
- Unknown 1
Filter by country of decision
- France 5
- Ireland 3
- Austria 2
- Belgium 2
- Spain 2
- Czech Republic 1
- Greece 1
- Hungary 1
- Italy 1
- Luxembourg 1
- United Kingdom 1