You are here

Home ›

EDAL case summaries

ECRE is currently working on redeveloping the website. Visitors can still access the database and search for asylum-related judgments up until 2021.

UK - Court of Appeal, 23 January 2003, FP (Iran) & MB (Libya) v Secretary of state for the Home Department, [2007] EWCA Civ 13

Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Iran, Libya
Keywords: Procedural guarantees
Fairness requires that an applicant in a protection claim is not bound by the procedural error of his legal representative. Procedural rules should not result in unfairness to asylum seekers.
Date: 23-01-2003

Belgium – Council of State, 27 November 2002, Nr. 113.002

Country of Decision: Belgium
Country of Applicant: Congo (DRC)
Keywords: Subsequent application
The Council of State confirmed that a new element, in a subsequent application  (Art 51/8 of the Belgian Aliens Law – see comments section below) can relate to facts or situations that occurred after the last phase of the procedure in which the applicant could have submitted them and also consist of new evidence relevant to an earlier situation.

The Council also found that the Immigration Department can only reject, at the phase of taking into consideration of an application, the elements that are not new in the sense of Art 51/8 or that are manifestly irrelevant.
Date: 27-11-2002

ECtHR - Al- Nashif v Bulgaria, Applciation no. 50963/99, 20 September 2002

Country of Applicant: Bulgaria, Syria
Keywords: Detention, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Religion, Return

After the revocation of his residence permit due to his religious activities (alleged links with a fundamentalist organisation), the applicant was detained for a period of 26 days and later deported from Bulgaria. The applicant claims to have been refused access to a lawyer and to have been detained incommunicado. He also claims that his detention and deportation was an interference with his right to family life and right to religious freedom. 
Date: 20-09-2002

UK - Court of Appeal, 26 July 2002, El-Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 1103

Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Lebanon, Palestinian Territory
Keywords: Exclusion from protection
Art 1D of the 1951 Refugee Convention only applies to Palestinians who met two criteria. First of all, they had to have been in receipt of United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (“UNRWA”) protection or assistance on or before 28 July 1951 which was the date that the Convention was adopted. Secondly, whilst UNRWA’s mandate continued, if such Palestinians had left UNRWA’s field of operation they would have to show that they were in “exceptional circumstance”; for example if they were prevented from returning to UNRWA’s field of operation.
Date: 26-07-2002

Poland - Supreme Administrative Court in Warsaw, 4 June 2002, V SA 2817/01

Country of Decision: Poland
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Internal armed conflict, Persecution (acts of), Real risk, Standard of proof, Well-founded fear

When assessing an application for refugee status, what is important is whether the acts of persecution were carried out for the reasons identified in the Geneva Convention, and not whether or to what extent the victim of persecution can be identified with those reasons.

Fear of persecution within the meaning of Article 1A(2) of the Geneva Convention need not mean that persecution is certain or even probable. Recognition of refugee status is already justified where there are reasonable grounds for asserting the possibility of persecution. “Possibility” means that persecution may take...
Date: 04-06-2002

UK - Court of Appeal, 24 April 2002, S & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 539

Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Croatia
Keywords: Country of origin information, Individual assessment
This case concerned Country Guidance case law and the Court of Appeal’s direction on its application in subsequent asylum claims (see judicial guidance in comments section below).
Date: 24-04-2002

UK - Immigration Appeal Tribunal, 19 February 2002, Tanveer Ahmed [2002] UKIAT 00439

Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Pakistan
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, Country of origin information
This decision established that the burden of demonstrating the reliability of documents adduced in an asylum case lay on the applicant.  Only when an allegation of forgery was made  and it was necessary to determine whether the documents were forged did the burden shift to the Home Office. In that case the standard was the balance of probabilities.
Date: 19-02-2002

Poland - Supreme Administrative Court in Warsaw, 14 February 2002, V SA/Wa 1673/01,

Country of Decision: Poland
Country of Applicant: Palestinian Territory
Keywords: Cessation of protection, Exclusion from protection, Refugee sur place

One cannot demand recognition of refugee status pursuant to Article 1A(2) of the Geneva Convention where protection can be provided pursuant to Article 1D of the Convention. The phrase used in the first sentence of Article 1D of the Convention – “persons who are at present receiving… protection or assistance” – relates to those Palestinians who could avail themselves of protection on the date of the Convention, i.e., on 28 July 1951., and to their direct descendants born after that date, provided they remain under the mandate of UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency). “Protection...
Date: 14-02-2002

ECtHR - Čonka v Belgium, Application no. 51564/99, 5 February 2002

Country of Applicant: Slovakia
Keywords: Detention, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Individual assessment, Race

The applicants were unlawfully detained and had no effective remedy to challenge their detention. There was a finding that they had been collectively expelled, given the context of their expulsion along with many others of the same nationality, and as their individual circumstances had not been adequately taken into consideration. 
Date: 05-02-2002

UK - Court of Appeal, 3 January 2002, Svazas v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 74

Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Lithuania
Keywords: Actors of protection, Actor of persecution or serious harm, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Persecution (acts of)

Where the actors of persecution feared are themselves state agents consideration must still be given to whether the applicant can avail himself of protection, but this assessment must be made in context. There will be a spectrum of cases between, on the one extreme, those where the only ill-treatment is by non-state actors and, on the other extreme, those where the state itself is wholly complicit in the ill-treatment.
Date: 03-01-2002

Pages

Filter by case summary type

Filter by applicable legal provisions

Filter by keywords

Filter by date

Filter by country of decision