ECRE is currently working on redeveloping the website. Visitors can still access the database and search for asylum-related judgments up until 2021.
You are here
Home ›EDAL case summaries
Neither Austrian law nor the provisions of the Dublin III Regulation provide for legal remedies against a Member State’s rejection of a request for admission. The Dublin Regulation provides for a remonstration procedure between the Member States concerned in the event of a rejection, whereby after expiry of the remonstration period the requesting Member State is finally responsible for examining the application for international protection. A later agreement after the remonstration period has expired cannot establish any responsibility.
The Algerian Kafala system does not create a parent/child relationship within the meaning of direct descendant under Directive 2004/38 but it does fall under the notion of other family members of Article 3(2)(a) of the same Directive. The State must therefore make a balanced and reasonable assessment which considering the age of the child, the closeness of the relationship whether the family have lived together; potential risk of exploitation/trafficking and the best interests of the child....
The CJEU ruled that an asylum applicant may not be transferred under the Dublin III Regulation to the Member State responsible for processing their application if the living conditions would expose them to a situation of extreme material poverty amounting to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 CFR. In this regard, the Court held that the threshold was only met where such deficiencies attained a particularly high level of severity beyond a high degree of insecurity or significant degradation of living conditions. Correspondingly, national...
The CJEU ruled that an asylum seeker may not be transferred to the Member State that has previously granted him international protection if such living conditions would expose the applicant to a situation of extreme material poverty. The threshold was only met where such deficiencies attained a particularly high level of severity, going beyond a high degree of insecurity or significant degradation of living conditions.
The Court further clarified that this threshold also applied where there were infringements of the provisions of the...
The CJEU clarified that the Schengen Border Code must be interpreted as not allowing Member States to equate an external border with an internal border at which controls have been reintroduced. So, the Return Directive’s exceptions for third-country national who crossed external borders do not apply to someone in the applicant’s position.
The discretionary clause in Art. 17 II Dublin-III regulation might under certain circumstances oblige the member states to take charge of an applicant. This can be particularly the case, if the competence of the member state under chapter III of the Dublin-III regulation would not be given because of a deadline expiry the applicant had no influence on.
Residence permits obtained in the context of family reunification and long-term resident status, under Directives 2003/86 and 2003/109, may be withdrawn if they were issued on the basis of falsified documents, even if the holders were unaware of the fraud committed.
Article 11(2) of Directive 2003/86 must be interpreted as precluding the rejection of an application for family reunification lodged by a sponsor in favour of a minor of whom she is allegedly the guardian solely on the grounds of lack of official documentary evidence of the family relationship and the sponsor’s inability to explain the absence of such evidence being deemed implausible on the basis of general country of origin information.
Authorities have to take into consideration the specific circumstances of the sponsor and the minor,...
This appeal considered what the correct approach is to the assessment of medical evidence in asylum claims alleging torture. Hence, it was declared that decision-makers can receive assistance from medical experts who are able to offer an opinion about the injury inflicted. The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal and remitted KV’s appeal against the refusal of asylum to the Upper Tribunal for fresh determination.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
- National Case law 1420
- ECrtHR Case law 254
- CJEU Case law 125
Filter by applicable legal provisions
- European Union Law 1404
- Council of Europe Instruments 707
- International Law 539
- UNHCR Handbook 102
Filter by keywords
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 280
- Subsidiary Protection 256
- Effective remedy (right to) 248
- Detention 240
- Dublin Transfer 233
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 229
- Refugee Status 222
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 216
- Credibility assessment 211
- Procedural guarantees 202
- Effective access to procedures 185
- Membership of a particular social group 163
- Return 163
- Country of origin information 161
- Internal protection 158
- Individual assessment 125
- Well-founded fear 124
- Real risk 122
- Persecution (acts of) 121
- Responsibility for examining application 121
- Family unity (right to) 120
- Reception conditions 117
- Personal circumstances of applicant 116
- Non-refoulement 102
- Political Opinion 102
- Serious harm 98
- Burden of proof 97
- Exclusion from protection 95
- Best interest of the child 93
- Vulnerable person 92
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 88
- Subsequent application 87
- Protection 82
- Child Specific Considerations 81
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 79
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 79
- Internal armed conflict 78
- Standard of proof 78
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 77
- Unaccompanied minor 76
- Family member 74
- Material reception conditions 73
- Indiscriminate violence 72
- Relevant Documentation 72
- Gender Based Persecution 71
- Religion 71
- Torture 69
- Family reunification 68
- Relevant Facts 67
- Safe third country 67
- Individual threat 63
- Humanitarian considerations 61
- Personal interview 61
- Request to take back 61
- Country of origin 58
- Previous persecution 57
- Actors of protection 55
- Discrimination 55
- Obligation to give reasons 51
- Delay 49
- Sexual orientation 49
- Inadmissible application 48
- Accelerated procedure 47
- Health (right to) 47
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 46
- Refugee sur place 46
- Armed conflict 42
- Revocation of protection status 42
- Terrorism 40
- First country of asylum 39
- Request that charge be taken 39
- Benefit of doubt 37
- Manifestly unfounded application 34
- Safe country of origin 33
- Access to the labour market 32
- Accommodation centre 32
- Nationality 31
- Residence document 30
- Crime against humanity 29
- Dependant (Dependent person) 29
- Duty of applicant 28
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 26
- Race 25
- Visa 25
- Circumstances ceased to exist 24
- Final decision 24
- Serious non-political crime 24
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 23
- Stateless person 22
- Freedom of movement (right to) 21
- Trafficking in human beings 20
- Cessation of protection 19
- Integration measures 18
- Indirect refoulement 17
- War crimes 17
- Female genital mutilation 15
- More favourable provisions 11
- Country of former habitual residence 10
- International armed conflict 10
- Death penalty / Execution 9
- Education (right to) 8
- Sponsor 8
- Withdrawal of protection application 8
- Temporary protection 4
- Genocide 3
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 218
- Iraq 125
- Iran 104
- Russia 92
- Syria 92
- Nigeria 88
- Somalia 84
- Turkey 60
- Unknown 59
- Pakistan 45
- Eritrea 43
- Russia (Chechnya) 41
- Algeria 37
- Sudan 37
- Congo (DRC) 36
- Sri Lanka 35
- Kosovo 27
- Palestinian Territory 25
- Morocco 23
- Ukraine 22
- Cameroon 21
- Guinea 19
- Ivory Coast 19
- Armenia 18
- Albania 17
- Ethiopia 16
- Lebanon 16
- Rwanda 16
- China 15
- Bangladesh 14
- Georgia 14
- Ghana 14
- Colombia 13
- Gambia 13
- Tunisia 13
- Egypt 12
- Serbia 12
- Senegal 11
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 10
- Sierra Leone 10
- Uzbekistan 10
- Mali 9
- Belarus 8
- India 8
- Kyrgyzstan 8
- Vietnam 8
- Angola 7
- Kazakhstan 7
- Mongolia 7
- Uganda 7
- Azerbaijan 6
- France 6
- Libya 6
- South Africa 6
- Togo 6
- United Kingdom 6
- Zimbabwe 6
- Burundi 5
- Croatia 5
- Mauritania 5
- Tanzania 5
- Bulgaria 4
- Jordan 4
- Kenya 4
- Lithuania 4
- Moldova 4
- United States 4
- Western Sahara 4
- Brazil 3
- China (Tibet) 3
- Cuba 3
- Germany 3
- Liberia 3
- Macedonia 3
- Benin 2
- Bhutan 2
- Botswana 2
- Chad 2
- Congo (Republic of) 2
- Cyprus 2
- Haiti 2
- Israel 2
- Kuwait 2
- Myanmar 2
- Niger 2
- North Korea 2
- Saudi Arabia 2
- Slovakia 2
- South Korea 2
- Tajikistan 2
- Venezuela 2
- Austria 1
- Burkina Faso 1
- Central African Republic 1
- Comoros 1
- Czech Republic 1
- Djibouti 1
- Dominican Republic 1
- Ecuador 1
- Gabon 1
- Greece 1
- Guinea-Bissau 1
- Indonesia 1
- Italy 1
- Jamaica 1
- Madagascar 1
- Malawi 1
- Montenegro 1
- Namibia 1
- Nepal 1
- New Zealand 1
- Philippines 1
- Poland 1
- Romania 1
- Thailand 1
- Zambia 1
Filter by country of decision
- France 177
- Germany 162
- United Kingdom 149
- Austria 97
- Ireland 88
- Belgium 85
- Sweden 74
- Netherlands 66
- Spain 62
- Greece 59
- Czech Republic 58
- Poland 58
- Italy 52
- Hungary 47
- Finland 42
- Slovenia 35
- Slovakia 30
- Denmark 25
- Switzerland 17
- Luxembourg 16
- Portugal 13
- Cyprus 7