You are here
Home ›EDAL case summaries
Netherlands – Court of The Hague, 19 October 2020, NL20.15181, NL20.15183, NL20.15188 and NL20.15194
The reception conditions for beneficiaries of international protection in Bulgaria are such that they may face severe material deprivation due to “indifference” on the part of the authorities (cfr. CJEU, Ibrahim), potentially amounting to a violation of Article 3 ECHR / Article 4 CFREU.
When the State Secretary decides that a request for international protection is not admissible, because the applicants have refugee status in Bulgaria, it is not sufficient for him to refer to the principle of mutual trust between EU Member States and to...
The Supreme Court of Ireland handed down a judgment concerning the question whether the Minister for Justice and Equality is obliged to revoke a deportation order or otherwise facilitate a person to enter the State, when that person has been granted consent to make a subsequent application for international protection under section 22 of the International Protection Act 2015, which requires the person's presence in the State to make the application. It was held that there is no express right to enter the State for the purposes of making an application, save where the...
The governmental authority is requesting an authorization to detain an immigrant after an alleged infraction of article 53 of the Organic Law 4/2000 in order to guarantee the enforcement of a possible return procedure. Following the procedures detailed in article 62 of said law, the Court assessed the particular circumstances of the case, including the risk of nonappearance and the possible existence of previous administrative sanctions of the subject, concluding that the lack of roots in the Spanish territory and the fact that he already filled in an asylum application...
A stateless person from Palestine who was registered by UNRWA and received its assistance shall not be excluded from refugee status when it is established that his personal safety in Palestine is at serious risk and it is impossible for UNRWA to guarantee that the living conditions, which has forced the individual to leave Palestine, are compatible with its mission.
From the available evidence, the Court concludes that UNRWA is unable to provide protection and assistance to Palestinian refugees in Gaza.
Asylum applicants in Melilla and Ceuta can change their legal residence with the sole obligation of informing the relevant authorities.
In three conjoined judicial reviews concerning the legality of the Home Secretary’s exercise of her power under paragraph 9 of Schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016 to provide accommodation to those who are granted immigration bail, it was held that each of the three claimants had been unlawfully denied such accommodation, and that the relevant policy was systemically unfair.
The Court decided that the applicants’ arrest and detention were unlawful under Article 5 of the Convention. The eighth applicant’s complaint under Article 3 that she, a minor at the time, was not provided with adequate care in detention in connection with her pregnancy and the miscarriage she suffered was not accepted by the Court.
EU law does not preclude national legislation that allows an illegally staying third-country national to be detained in prison accommodation for removal, on the ground that he poses a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society or the internal or external security of the Member State concerned. The detainee should be kept separated from ordinary prisoners.
Slovakian authorities provided information and interpretation and there are no indications that these were inadequate to the extent of impairing the individual’s access to asylum. The applicant’s return to Ukraine was conducted in the context of a readmission framework and there was no reason for Slovakian authorities to be particularly alert regarding potential human rights violations in Ukraine.
However, there has been a procedural violation of Article 3 of the Convention by Ukraine on account of the Ukrainian authorities’ failure to examine...
An applicant that has received protection on behalf of UNRWA is not required to prove a fear of persecution to be recognised as a refugee; the asylum authorities have to examine whether the applicant was actually receiving UNRWA protection and whether that protection has ceased.
An individual examination of the case will reveal whether the cessation of UNRWA protection resulted from objective reasons that the agency could not rectify.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
- National Case law 1390
- ECrtHR Case law 248
- CJEU Case law 117
Filter by applicable legal provisions
- European Union Law 1368
- Council of Europe Instruments 685
- International Law 531
- UNHCR Handbook 102
Filter by keywords
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 270
- Subsidiary Protection 249
- Effective remedy (right to) 245
- Detention 234
- Dublin Transfer 225
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 221
- Refugee Status 221
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 216
- Credibility assessment 207
- Procedural guarantees 201
- Effective access to procedures 181
- Membership of a particular social group 161
- Country of origin information 157
- Return 155
- Internal protection 154
- Persecution (acts of) 121
- Real risk 120
- Well-founded fear 120
- Responsibility for examining application 119
- Family unity (right to) 117
- Individual assessment 115
- Reception conditions 113
- Personal circumstances of applicant 111
- Political Opinion 101
- Non-refoulement 100
- Burden of proof 96
- Serious harm 96
- Exclusion from protection 94
- Best interest of the child 88
- Subsequent application 87
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 85
- Vulnerable person 85
- Protection 81
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 79
- Child Specific Considerations 77
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 77
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 77
- Standard of proof 77
- Unaccompanied minor 75
- Internal armed conflict 73
- Gender Based Persecution 71
- Material reception conditions 71
- Relevant Documentation 71
- Religion 71
- Family member 70
- Indiscriminate violence 70
- Torture 68
- Relevant Facts 67
- Family reunification 66
- Safe third country 65
- Individual threat 63
- Humanitarian considerations 61
- Request to take back 61
- Personal interview 60
- Country of origin 56
- Previous persecution 56
- Discrimination 55
- Actors of protection 53
- Obligation to give reasons 49
- Accelerated procedure 47
- Delay 47
- Sexual orientation 47
- Refugee sur place 46
- Inadmissible application 45
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 44
- Armed conflict 42
- Health (right to) 42
- Revocation of protection status 41
- First country of asylum 39
- Terrorism 39
- Benefit of doubt 37
- Request that charge be taken 37
- Manifestly unfounded application 34
- Access to the labour market 32
- Accommodation centre 31
- Nationality 31
- Safe country of origin 31
- Crime against humanity 29
- Dependant (Dependent person) 29
- Duty of applicant 28
- Residence document 27
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 26
- Race 25
- Visa 25
- Circumstances ceased to exist 23
- Final decision 23
- Serious non-political crime 23
- Freedom of movement (right to) 21
- Obligation/Duty to cooperate 21
- Stateless person 21
- Trafficking in human beings 19
- Cessation of protection 18
- Integration measures 18
- War crimes 17
- Indirect refoulement 16
- 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 211
- Iraq 120
- Iran 102
- Russia 92
- Syria 91
- Nigeria 85
- Somalia 83
- Turkey 60
- Unknown 56
- Pakistan 44
- Eritrea 41
- Russia (Chechnya) 41
- Algeria 37
- Sudan 37
- Congo (DRC) 36
- Sri Lanka 34
- Kosovo 27
- Palestinian Territory 24
- Morocco 23
- Ukraine 22
- Cameroon 20
- Guinea 19
- Ivory Coast 19
- Armenia 18
- Albania 17
- Ethiopia 16
- Rwanda 16
- Lebanon 15
- Bangladesh 14
- China 14
- Georgia 14
- Colombia 13
- Gambia 13
- Ghana 13
- Tunisia 13
- Egypt 12
- Serbia 12
- Senegal 11
- Uzbekistan 10
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 9
- Mali 9
- Sierra Leone 9
- Belarus 8
- India 8
- Kyrgyzstan 8
- Angola 7
- Mongolia 7
- Uganda 7
- Vietnam 7
- Azerbaijan 6
- France 6
- Kazakhstan 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
- 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
- Venezuela 1
- Zambia 1
Filter by country of decision
- France 176
- Germany 155
- United Kingdom 149
- Austria 89
- Ireland 88
- Belgium 84
- Sweden 74
- Netherlands 60
- Greece 59
- Spain 59
- Czech Republic 58
- Poland 58
- Italy 52
- Hungary 47
- Finland 42
- Slovenia 35
- Slovakia 30
- Denmark 25
- Luxembourg 16
- Switzerland 16
- Portugal 10
- Cyprus 7