Last Updated: Friday, 26 May 2023, 13:32 GMT

Adjudication of asylum claims (refugee status determination / asylum procedures) / Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures

Selected filters: Case Law
Filter:
Showing 11-20 of 162 results
AFFAIRE M.A. c. BELGIQUE (Requête no 19656/18)

The case concerned the applicant’s removal to Sudan by the Belgian authorities in spite of a court decision ordering the suspension of the measure. The Court found in particular that on account of procedural defects attributable to the Belgian authorities prior to the applicant’s removal to Sudan, he had been prevented from pursuing the asylum application that he had lodged in Belgium and the Belgian authorities had not sufficiently assessed the real risks that he faced in Sudan. In addition, by deporting the applicant in spite of the court order to suspend the measure, the authorities had rendered ineffective the applicant’s successful appeal.

27 October 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Effective remedy - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Suspensive effect | Countries: Belgium - Sudan

Applicant v. State Secretary for Security and Justice

19 October 2020 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: The Hague District Court | Topic(s): Housing, land and property rights (HLP) - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Right to education | Countries: Bulgaria - Netherlands - Syrian Arab Republic

Ivan Seredych (Applicant/Respondent) - And - The Minister for Justice And Equality (Respondent/Appellant)

13 October 2020 | Judicial Body: Ireland: Supreme Court | Legal Instrument: 2013 Recast Asylum Procedures Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Readmission - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Ireland - Ukraine

M.A.A. v. D.E.M.E.

I have concluded that the evidence establishes that the children would, on a balance of probabilities, suffer serious harm if returned to their habitual residence of Kuwait. Ontario therefore may and should exercise jurisdiction to determine custody and access. I have also concluded that it was an error to order the return of the children pending the determination of their refugee claim.

29 July 2020 | Judicial Body: Canada: Court of Appeal for Ontario | Topic(s): Children's rights - Children-at-risk - Physical harm - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Canada - Kuwait

AFFAIRE N.H. ET AUTRES c. FRANCE (Requête no 28820/13 et 2 autres)

The French authorities had failed in their duties under domestic law. They were found responsible for the conditions in which the applicants had been living for several months: sleeping rough, without access to sanitary facilities, having no means of subsistence and constantly in fear of being attacked or robbed. The applicants had thus been victims of degrading treatment, showing a lack of respect for their dignity. The Court found that such living conditions, combined with the lack of an appropriate response from the French authorities and the fact that the domestic courts had systematically objected that the competent bodies lacked resources in the light of their status as single young men, had exceeded the threshold of severity for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention. The three applicants N.H., K.T. and A.J. had thus found themselves, through the fault of the French authorities, in a situation that was incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention.

2 July 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Reception - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Afghanistan - France - Georgia - Iran, Islamic Republic of - Russian Federation

Arrêt E-1813/2019 du 1er juillet 2020

In a landmark judgment, the Federal Administrative Court acknowledged the existence of a new specific circumstance that goes against the granting of family asylum. In addition, it considered that the result of the assessment of evidence made in the original, already concluded, asylum procedure cannot be simply transposed to the subsequent family asylum procedure. The right to be heard must be granted again and the results assessed separately.

1 July 2020 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Topic(s): Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Right to family life - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness | Countries: China - Switzerland

Urteil vom 9. Juni 2020

It finds that, although asylum-seekers are not entitled to have their asylum application processed in one of the two types of procedures, an infringement of the right to an effective appeal within the meaning of Article 29a of the Swiss Federal Constitution and Article 13 in relation to Article 3 ECHR may arise if, despite the complexity of the matter, a decision is made, incorrectly, not to opt for an extended procedure and therefore the short time limit for appeal applies instead of the standard one.

9 June 2020 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Topic(s): Appeal / Right to appeal - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness

Switzerland: Judgement FAC E-6713_2019 of 9 June 2020[1538]

The judgment deals with the question of when asylum applications must be referred to the extended procedure due to their complexity instead of being decided under the accelerated procedure.

9 June 2020 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Iran, Islamic Republic of - Switzerland

CASE OF A.S.N. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS (Applications nos. 68377/17 and 530/18)

Art 3 ECHR • Expulsion • No risk of ill-treatment in case of removal of Afghan Sikhs to Afghanistan • Adequate assessment of the risks by the domestic authorities • No compelling humanitarian grounds against removal. See also joint partly dissenting opinion on the assessment by the domestic authorities of the foreseeable consequences of the applications to Afghanistan.

25 February 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Sikh | Countries: Afghanistan - Netherlands

AJ (Ukraine)

This is an appeal against a decision of a refugee and protection officer declining to grant refugee status or protected person status to the appellants who are a mother (the mother) and son (the son). The mother is a citizen of the Ukraine. She is also a Russian citizen. The son was born in New Zealand. There is some dispute concerning his nationality but, as will be seen below, the Tribunal finds him to be entitled to Ukrainian citizenship.

17 February 2020 | Judicial Body: New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal | Topic(s): Citizenship / Nationality law - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Right to family life | Countries: New Zealand - Ukraine

Search Refworld