EDAL case summaries

Even if not explicitly referred to in domestic laws, such  as the Civil Code, those previsions on subsidiary protection should be interpreted in light of international law. Therefore, even if the literal interpretation of article 22.3 of the Civil Code only refers to asylum, the consideration of the social context and international law would call for an extension of this provision on reduced residency requirements to also cover those holding subsidiary protection status.  

The Court of Appeal found the "one-off" expedited procedure in place from 2016-2017 in Calais for unaccompanied children with family members, siblings or relatives in the UK and operated by the British and French authorities to fall below the requirements of procedural fairness as a matter of common law. 

The authorities did not follow the correct procedure regarding the examination of the applicants’ religion-based claim and did not carry out a proper assessment of country information. The authorities were instructed to re-assess the applications and to move the claimants to accommodation facilities outside the transit zone.

When applying art. 1.F) of the Convention, there is a need of proving that the appellant is a concrete danger for the national security. As it is a restriction for the right of asylum, this provision should be applied restrictively.  In the instant case, there is no sufficient indication that the applicant constitutes danger to national security.