Adjudication of asylum claims (refugee status determination / asylum procedures) / Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures
- Case Law 6
|
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL PIKAMÄE, in Case C‑483/20 XXXX
v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (Belgium))
1. Migratory journeys are often the result of a combination of two elements: chance and necessity. In the case before the Court, a Syrian national, after travelling through Libya and Turkey, arrived in Austria, where, out of necessity, he lodged an application for international protection. After obtaining refugee status, he went to Belgium to be reunited with his two children, one of whom is a minor, and there lodged a new application for international protection, which was declared inadmissible in view of the prior recognition granted in the first Member State. 2. It is against that background that the question arises, to my knowledge for the first time, whether, in particular, the fundamental right to respect for family life enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), read in conjunction with the obligation to take into consideration the child’s best interests set out in Article 24(2) of the Charter, can override the inadmissibility mechanism for applications for international protection laid down in Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU. (2) 30 September 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Right to family life | Countries: Austria - Belgium - Syrian Arab Republic |
|
XY v Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl Case C-18/20
preliminary ruling on interpretation of article 40 Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection 9 September 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Austria - Iraq |
|
Opinion of Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe in Case C‑18/20
(1) The concept of ‘new elements or findings [that] have arisen or have been presented by the applicant’, as used in Article 40(2) and (3) 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, must be interpreted as meaning that it also covers elements or findings which already existed before the procedure relating to a previous application for international protection was definitively concluded, but which were not relied on by the applicant in the context of that procedure. (2) Article 40(3) of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as meaning that the substantive examination of a subsequent application does not require a specific procedure, provided that the national procedure fulfils the requirements laid down in Chapter II of that directive. Article 42(2) of that directive, read in conjunction with Article 40(2) to (4) and Article 33(2)(d) thereof, must be interpreted as prohibiting the setting of time limits per se. (3) Article 40(4) of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as meaning that the condition relating to the absence of fault laid down therein cannot be applied in the context of an administrative procedure unless that condition is expressly laid down in national law in a manner that satisfies the requirements of legal certainty. It is for the referring court to verify whether this is the case here. 15 April 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Austria - Iraq |
|
Majid Shiri
25 October 2017 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Burden-sharing and international co-operation - Deportation / Forcible return - Effective remedy - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Austria - Bulgaria - Iran, Islamic Republic of |
|
Khadija Jafari and Zainab Jafari (Austria)
26 July 2017 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Border controls - Border crossers - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Transit - Visas | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria |
|
Schlussanträge des Generalanwalts Pedro Cruz Villalón vom 11. Juli 2013, Shamso Abdullahi gegen Bundesasylamt
11 July 2013 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Regional instruments - Right to seek asylum | Countries: Austria |
