Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Reset
Netherlands – Court of The Hague, 19 October 2020, NL20.15181, NL20.15183, NL20.15188 and NL20.15194
Country of applicant: Syria
Keywords: Burden of proof, First country of asylum, Non-refoulement, Personal circumstances of applicant, Inadmissible application, Access to the labour market, Integration measures, Material reception conditions, Health (right to), Education (right to), Vulnerable person

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 Council of State’s jurisprudence, but he is obliged to examine the applicant’ s individual circumstances and to obtain specific information and guarantees from the Bulgarian authorities.

Date of decision: 19-10-2020
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 4,Article 33,Article 3,Article 2,Article 12,Article 26,Article 27,Article 29,Article 30,Article 32,Article 34
Spain: National Court. Chamber of Contentious-Administrative Proceedings n. 5177/2017, 5th December 2017, Appeal No. 234/2017
Country of applicant: Gambia
Keywords: Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Personal circumstances of applicant, Well-founded fear, Family unity (right to)

When examining the acceptance of an asylum claim, the authorities have to study whether the testimony of the applicant is based on presumably true facts. Only if it is manifestly false could the admission of this application be denied.

The principle of family unity has to be taken into account regarding the assessment of the circumstances of the applicant, especially since his sister’s application for international protection was accepted.

Date of decision: 05-12-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 1A (2),Art 1F,Art 33,Article 7,Article 11,Article 23,Article 24,Article 25,Article 26,Article 27,Article 28,Article 29,Article 30,Article 31,Article 32,Article 33,Article 34,Article 35
Poland - Judgement of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw from 7 October 2016 I SA/Wa 1197/16 quashing the decision of the President of Warsaw who refused granting child care benefit “500+” to a person with refugee status
Keywords: Discrimination, Access to the labour market, Material reception conditions

The purpose of the child care benefit “500 ” envisaged in the Law of 11 February 2016 is to provide assistance to parents and guardians in raising children by covering some expenses related to their needs. Excluding refugees from persons entitled to this benefit because their residence card does not contain a note “access to labour market” would lead to unfair differentiation of the legal situation of the foreigners (dividing them into those who were issued a residence card with the note “access to labour market“ and those issued a residence card without this note) and of the children (because of their origin and nationality). 

Date of decision: 07-10-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,European Union Law,International Law,Art 23,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Article 26,Article 29,UN Convention on the Rights of the Child