About EDAL European Database of Asylum Law


The European Database of Asylum Law (EDAL) is an online database, managed by the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and containing case law from 22 European states interpreting refugee and asylum law as well as from the CJEU and ECtHR. EDAL summarises relevant case law in English and the Member State’s national language and provides a link to, and/or pdf. of, the full text of the original judgment where available.

EDAL was created through funding from European Commission’s European Refugee Fund. Its creation was coordinated by the Irish Refugee Council in partnership with the ECRE; the Hungarian Helsinki Committee (HHC) also joined as partners during the second phase of development. EDAL’s objective is to strengthen the development of harmonized standards of protection within the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) and, in particular, to increase consistency and quality in the interpretation and application of CEAS legislation.

Currently the database is managed by ECRE.

The primary audience is decision-makers at all levels, practitioners, academics and policy makers. EDAL aims to foster deeper cooperation amongst decision-makers and practitioners in Member States. The database contains case summaries from the following Member States:

  • Austria
  • Belgium
  • Cyprus
  • The Czech Republic
  • Denmark
  • Finland
  • France
  • Germany
  • Greece
  • Hungary
  • Ireland
  • Italy
  • Luxembourg
  • The Netherlands
  • Poland
  • Portugal
  • Slovenia
  • Slovakia
  • Spain
  • Sweden
  • Switzerland
  • UK

Criteria for Selecting Cases

A guide to case selection criteria, style and methodology can be accessed here.

International Protection Standards

EDAL is conscious that EU law is not the only source of asylum and refugee law in Member States. Every Member State is a signatory to the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees and there can be discrepancies in the interpretation of international (and EU) obligations between different Member States. EDAL is useful to identify cases that either highlight protection gaps in Member States or demonstrate instances where Member States have maintained higher standards than are required by EU asylum acquis but correspond with international law.

Features of EDAL

EDAL is searchable in English and the original language of the decision. The website interface is available in English only. 

The case summaries are searchable by a free text / full text search, as well as by keyword, applicable legal provisions, country of decision, country of applicant and date.

EU Law Provisions Cited & Applicable

Case summaries on EDAL identify EU legal provisions cited and applicable to a case (even if not cited). For example, the jurisprudence in most countries will not make reference to Article 4 of the Qualification Directive concerning the Assessment of Facts and Circumstances when discussing the issue of credibility or ‘benefit of the doubt’, although Article 4 may be relevant and applicable.


EDAL contains information on each Member State’s legal framework – Country Overview – outlining how the asylum system operates, and explaining the standing and relationship between different courts and tribunals in that process. It also contains a range of legislation and other relevant resources such as NGO reports and UNHCR Guidelines.

EDAL regularly publishes blog articles from asylum practitioners and academics covering topics ranging from detention to credibility assessment. Our bloggers analyse and provide legal commentary on the most pertinent national and European case law relating to asylum matters as well as the interpretation of European and international human rights treaties by courts.
Timely news items are published on EDAL, keeping the reader up-to-date with the latest national and European case law as well as NGO publications and country of origin reports.

Please note: Where applicable EDAL notes in case summaries that a decision may not be final. It is not always possible to know if cases in national jurisdictions have been confirmed or over ruled by a higher court. We aim to update case law as soon as we are informed, however new case law may be applicable that we are not aware of.