UNHCR is not responsible for the content and availability of non-UNHCR websites. Content displays in a new window.
K v Landkreis Gifhorn, Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover, Case C-519/20
La demande de décision préjudicielle porte sur l’interprétation de l’article 16, paragraphe 1, et de l’article 18 de la directive 2008/115/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil, du 16 décembre 2008, relative aux normes et procédures communes applicables dans les États membres au retour des ressortissants de pays tiers en séjour irrégulier (JO 2008, L 348, p. 98). 10 March 2022 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2008 Returns Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Emergency legislation - Expulsion - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Germany - Pakistan |
VG Braunschweig 2. Kammer, Beschluss vom 25.02.2022, 2 B 27/22
Systemic flaws in the Croatian asylum procedure due to violent push-backs 1. There is considerable evidence that Croatian authorities through forced returns to Bosnia-Herzegovina specifically thwart the right to apply for asylum and thus violate the non-refoulement principle. 2. Croatian police officers regularly use physical and psychological violence when performing push-backs. 3. Due to Croatia's participation in chain deportations from other EU countries, it cannot be ruled out that Dublin returnees from Germany will also become victims of push-backs. 25 February 2022 | Judicial Body: Germany: Verwaltungsgericht | Topic(s): Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Croatia - Germany - Iran, Islamic Republic of |
VG Hannover 12. Kammer, Beschluss vom 23.02.2022, 12 B 6475/21
Decision in German available here: http://www.rechtsprechung.niedersachsen.juris.de/jportal/?quelle=jlink&docid=MWRE220005233&psml=bsndprod.psml&max=true 23 February 2022 | Judicial Body: Germany: Verwaltungsgericht | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Suspensive effect | Countries: Germany - Lithuania |
OVG Lüneburg 4. Senat, Beschluss vom 09.02.2022, 4 LA 74/20,
9 February 2022 | Judicial Body: Germany: Oberverwaltungsgericht | Topic(s): Gender-based persecution - Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription - Social group persecution - Women-at-risk | Countries: Eritrea - Germany |
VGH BW, Urteil vom 27.01.2022 – A 4 S 2443/21 –, Juris
27 January 2022 | Judicial Body: Germany: Verwaltungsgericht | Legal Instrument: 2013 Recast Asylum Procedures Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Decision on admissibility - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Housing, land and property rights (HLP) | Countries: Germany - Greece - Syrian Arab Republic |
Bundesrepublik Deutschland v SE,Case C-768/19
The request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 2 (j) of Directive 2011/95 / EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 concerning the standards relating to the conditions to be met by third country nationals or stateless persons in order to benefit from international protection, to a uniform status for refugees or persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and to the content of this protection 9 September 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2011 Recast Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Afghanistan - Germany |
Beschluss der 10. Kammer vom 25. August 2021 (VG 10 L 285/21 V)
protection claim based on previous cooperation with organization 25 August 2021 | Judicial Body: Germany: Verwaltungsgericht | Countries: Afghanistan - Germany |
DN v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules: 1. Article 15(c) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, must be interpreted as precluding the interpretation of national legislation according to which, where a civilian is not specifically targeted by reason of factors particular to his or her personal circumstances, a finding of serious and individual threat to that civilian’s life or person by reason of ‘indiscriminate violence in situations of … armed conflict’, within the meaning of that provision, is subject to the condition that the ratio between the number of casualties in the relevant area and the total number of individuals composing the population of that area reach a fixed threshold. 2. Article 15(c) of Directive 2011/95 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether there is a ‘serious and individual threat’, within the meaning of that provision, a comprehensive appraisal of all the circumstances of the individual case, in particular those which characterise the situation of the applicant’s country of origin, is required. 10 June 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Generalized violence - International protection | Countries: Afghanistan - Germany |
L.R. v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby rules: Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in conjunction with Article 2(q) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides for the possibility of rejecting as inadmissible an application for international protection, within the meaning of Article 2(b) of that directive, made to that Member State by a third-country national or a stateless person whose previous application seeking the grant of refugee status, made to a third State implementing Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, in accordance with the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Iceland or Norway – Declarations, had been rejected by that third State. 20 May 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Secondary movement | Countries: Germany - Iran, Islamic Republic of |
Opinion of Advocate General Hogan, delivered on 25 March 2021, Case C‑768/19, Bundesrepublik Deutschland v. SE
In the circumstances of a case such as that in the main proceedings, the relevant point in time for assessing the ‘minor’ status of the beneficiary of international protection pursuant to the third indent of Article 2(j) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, is the date on which his father makes an application for international protection pursuant to Article 6(1) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, provided that the beneficiary of international protection has applied for that protection prior to reaching the age of majority and both family members in question are present in the same Member State prior to beneficiary of international protection reaching the age of majority. In accordance with the third indent of Article 2(j) of Directive 2011/95, the concept of ‘family members’ in respect of a father of a beneficiary of international protection is dependent solely on the three conditions, namely that the family already existed in the country of origin, that the family members of the beneficiary of international protection are present in the same Member State in relation to the application for international protection and that the beneficiary of international protection is an unmarried minor. The third indent of Article 2(j) of Directive 2011/95 does not require the resumption between the family members in question of family life within the meaning of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. If an unmarried minor pursuant to the third indent of Article 2(j) of Directive 2011/95 on reaching the age of majority expressly indicates in writing that he or she does not wish to maintain family unity, then the purpose of Article 23 of Directive 2011/95 cannot be achieved and the competent national authorities are not required to grant to family members the corresponding benefits under Articles 24 to 35 of that directive. The rights of family members pursuant to the third indent of Article 2(j) and Article 23(2) of Directive 2011/95 do not persist for an unlimited period of time. The right of family members pursuant to the third indent of Article 2(j) and Article 23(2) of Directive 2011/95 to claim the benefits referred to in Articles 24 to 35 of that directive persists after the beneficiary of subsidiary protection reaches the age of majority, for the duration of the period of validity of the residence permit granted to them in accordance with Article 24(2) of that directive. 18 March 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Family reunification | Countries: Afghanistan - Germany |