You are here
Home › Netherlands ›EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: Netherlands
Country of Applicant: Eritrea
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Dublin Transfer, Unaccompanied minor
Switzerland is not the responsible Member State pursuant to Articles 6 and 8 of the Dublin III Regulation, since the unaccompanied minor lives in a foster family in the Netherlands and the Dutch authorities should take into consideration the factors of Article 6 (3) Dublin III Regulation, including the views of the minor. According to the court, Nidos (the guardianship institution for unaccompanied minors in the Netherlands) is an expert institution and its advice should be followed in assessing the best interest of the child.
Date: 23-12-2016
Country of Decision: Netherlands
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Non-refoulement, Safe third country
The State Secretary for Security and Justice rejects an application for temporary asylum residence permits by two Syrian minors based on the finding that Lebanon is a Safe Third Country for the applicants. The Court of The Hague rules that the State Secretary failed to sufficiently motivate his decision, as article 3.106a(1)(e) of the Aliens Decree was not taken into account.
Date: 23-11-2016
Country of Decision: Netherlands
Country of Applicant: Eritrea
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Dublin Transfer, Unaccompanied minor
Sweden is the responsible Member State pursuant to Articles 6 and 8 of the Dublin III Regulation, as the applicant is an unaccompanied minor and his father is legally residing in Sweden. According to the court, Nidos (the guardianship institution for unaccompanied minors in the Netherlands) is an expert institution and its advice should be followed in assessing the best interest of the child.
Date: 05-08-2016
Country of Decision: Netherlands
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, Inadmissible application, Indirect refoulement, Real risk, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Safe third country, Stateless person
A decision by the State Secretary for Security and Justice (the “State Secretary”) of the Netherlands will be in violation of: (i) Article 3.37e of the Foreigners Regulation 2000 if such decision, regarding whether a country qualifies as a safe third country, is not based on several information sources; and/or, (ii) Articles 3.2 and 3.46 of the Dutch General Administrative Law Act on the basis that all decisions of the State Secretary are required to (a) be carefully prepared and (b) include a decisive motivation.
Date: 05-08-2016
Country of Decision: Netherlands
Keywords: Child Specific Considerations, Dublin Transfer, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Material reception conditions, Reception conditions, Vulnerable person
The transfer of “extra vulnerable” asylum seekers from the Netherlands to Italy is contrary to article 3 ECHR.
Date: 18-07-2016
Country of Decision: Netherlands
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Detention, Effective remedy (right to), Freedom of movement (right to), Procedural guarantees, Reception conditions, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect)
If an Applicant, whilst his asylum application is being processed, is held in a limited area, this may be in contravention of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). In determining this, the Court may take into account all of the circumstances of the case, in particular the nature, period and effect of the holding of the Applicant and how the holding of the Applicant is enforced.
Date: 30-06-2016
Country of Decision: Netherlands
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Non-refoulement, Safe third country
The application for international protection by a Syrian national was declared inadmissible based on the finding that Egypt was a Safe Third Country for the applicant. The Court of the Hague concludes that the State Secretary has failed to substantiate his claim that Egypt could be considered a Safe Third Country.
Date: 13-06-2016
Country of Decision: Netherlands
Country of Applicant: Iraq
Keywords: Detention, Dublin Transfer, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Request to take back
In the case of a claimant whose first asylum application would be viewed as being withdrawn by Bulgarian authorities, it cannot be ruled out that upon return to Bulgaria under a take back request the applicant would not be detained. In light of reported detention conditions the Secretary of State should have investigated the risk of a potential Article 3 violation if the applicant were to be returned to Bulgaria.
Date: 13-05-2016
Country of Decision: Netherlands
Country of Applicant: Burundi
Keywords: Health (right to)
This case is concerned with whether the State Secretary for Security and Justice correctly argued that the medical report did not prevent the removal of an asylum seeker who was HIV positive.
The Council of State of the Netherlands ruled that the State Secretary could not have relied on the medical report. Hence, the State Secretary failed to sufficiently investigate whether the applicant would find herself in a life threatening situation when ordered to leave the territory of the Netherlands.
Date: 13-05-2016
Country of Decision: Netherlands
Country of Applicant: Eritrea
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application
This case relates to a take back request on grounds of Article 18(1)(d) Dublin III Regulation. Referring to the A-G opinion in Ghezelbash (Case C-63/15), the Court found that Abdullahi (C-349/12) is not applicable to the Dublin III Regulation. Hence, an applicant could call into question the application of the criteria for determining the responsible Member State in circumstances where a Member State has agreed to take back an applicant for international protection.
Date: 26-04-2016
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- Detention 10
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 8
- Dublin Transfer 8
- Subsequent application 8
- Credibility assessment 6
- Effective remedy (right to) 6
- Subsidiary Protection 6
- Effective access to procedures 5
- Indiscriminate violence 5
- Internal protection 5
- Procedural guarantees 5
- Armed conflict 4
- Best interest of the child 4
- Crime against humanity 4
- Exclusion from protection 4
- Reception conditions 4
- Request to take back 4
- Responsibility for examining application 4
- Unaccompanied minor 4
- Accelerated procedure 3
- Country of origin information 3
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 3
- Safe third country 3
- Serious harm 3
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 2
- Burden of proof 2
- Child Specific Considerations 2
- Country of origin 2
- First country of asylum 2
- Indirect refoulement 2
- Individual assessment 2
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2
- Material reception conditions 2
- Nationality 2
- Non-refoulement 2
- Persecution (acts of) 2
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 2
- Personal circumstances of applicant 2
- Real risk 2
- Relevant Documentation 2
- Relevant Facts 2
- Religion 2
- Return 2
- Vulnerable person 2
- Well-founded fear 2
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 1
- Benefit of doubt 1
- Delay 1
- Duty of applicant 1
- Freedom of movement (right to) 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Humanitarian considerations 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 1
- Manifestly unfounded application 1
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 1
- Refugee sur place 1
- Serious non-political crime 1
- Stateless person 1
- War crimes 1
- Withdrawal of protection application 1
Filter by country of applicant
Filter by country of decision
- (-) Remove Netherlands filterNetherlands
