M.A. v Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnyba, Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas, Case C-72/22 PPU
The Court, ruling under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure, holds that the Procedures Directive (4) precludes legislation of a Member State under which, in the event of a declaration of a state of war or a state of emergency or in the event of a declaration of an emergency due to a mass influx of foreigners, illegally staying third-country nationals are, de facto, denied the opportunity of having access to the procedure for examining an application for international protection in the territory of that Member State. Furthermore, the Court holds that the Reception Directive (5) precludes legislation of a Member State under which, in the event of such a declaration, an applicant for asylum may be detained on the sole ground that he or she is staying in the territory of that Member State illegally. 30 June 2022 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2013 Recast Asylum Procedures Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Immigration Detention - Reception - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Right to liberty and security - State of emergency | Countries: Lithuania |
TQ v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, Case C‑441/19, request for preliminary ruling
1. Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in conjunction with Article 5(a) of that directive and Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, before issuing a return decision against an unaccompanied minor, the Member State concerned must carry out a general and in-depth assessment of the situation of that minor, taking due account of the best interests of the child. In this context, that Member State must ensure that adequate reception facilities are available for the unaccompanied minor in question in the State of return. 2. Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/115, read in conjunction with Article 5(a) of that directive and in the light of Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may not distinguish between unaccompanied minors solely on the basis of the criterion of their age for the purpose of ascertaining whether there are adequate reception facilities in the State of return. 3. Article 8(1) of Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as precluding a Member State, after it has adopted a return decision in respect of an unaccompanied minor and has been satisfied, in accordance with Article 10(2) of that directive, that that minor will be returned to a member of his or her family, a nominated guardian or adequate reception facilities in the State of return, from refraining from subsequently removing that minor until he or she reaches the age of 18 years. 14 January 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2008 Returns Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Children's rights - Deportation / Forcible return - Reception - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Guinea - Netherlands |
K. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
14 September 2017 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Immigration Detention - Proof of nationality - Reception - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Iran, Islamic Republic of - Netherlands |
C. K., H. F., A. S. c. Republika Slovenija
16 February 2017 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Reception - Refugee / Asylum law | Countries: Slovenia |
C. K., H. F., A. S. v Republika Slovenija
16 February 2017 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Reception - Refugee / Asylum law | Countries: Slovenia |
Conclusions de l'avocat Général M. Evgeni Tanchev: C. K., H. F., A. S. c Republika Slovenija
9 February 2017 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Reception - Refugees | Countries: Slovenia |
Conclusions de l'Avocat Général: Centre public d'action sociale d'Ottignies-Louvain-La-Neuve c Moussa Abdida
4 September 2014 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Reception - Regional instruments - Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Belgium |
Federaal agentschap voor de opvang van asielzoekers v. Selver Saciri and others
27 February 2014 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Children's rights - Reception - Regional instruments - Right to family life | Countries: Belgium |
Cimade, Groupe d'information et de soutien des immigrés (GISTI) v Ministre de l'Intérieur, de l'Outre-mer, des Collectivités territoriales et de l'Immigration
27 September 2012 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Reception - Regional instruments - Safe third country - Single procedure | Countries: France |
Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, delivered on 15 May 2012, CIMADE et Groupe d'information et de soutien des immigrés (GISTI) v. Ministre de l'intérieur, de l'outre-mer, des collectivités territoriales et de l'immigration
15 May 2012 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Reception - Regional instruments - Safe third country - Single procedure | Countries: France |