E. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (C‑635/17) (request for preliminary ruling)
1. The Court of Justice of the European Union has jurisdiction, on the basis of Article 267 TFEU, to interpret Article 11(2) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where a national court is called upon to rule on an application for family reunification lodged by a beneficiary of subsidiary protection, if that provision was made directly and unconditionally applicable to such a situation under national law. 2. Article 11(2) of Directive 2003/86 must be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in which an application for family reunification has been lodged by a sponsor benefiting from subsidiary protection in favour of a minor of whom she is the aunt and allegedly the guardian, and who resides as a refugee and without family ties in a third country, that application from being rejected solely on the ground that the sponsor has not provided official documentary evidence of the death of the minor’s biological parents and, consequently, that she has an actual family relationship with him, and that the explanation given by the sponsor to justify her inability to provide such evidence has been deemed implausible by the competent authorities solely on the basis of the general information available concerning the situation in the country of origin, without taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the sponsor and the minor and the particular difficulties they have encountered, according to their testimony, before and after fleeing their country of origin. 13 March 2019 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Country of origin information (COI) - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Family reunification | Countries: Eritrea - Netherlands |
Conclusion de l'Avocat general Bot dans l'affaire C-720/17 Mohammed Bilali contre Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl [demande de décision préjudicielle formée par le Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Cour administrative, Autriche)]
Une autorité nationale compétente peut-elle se fonder sur les dispositions prévues à l’article 19 de la directive 2011/95/UE (2) afin de procéder à la révocation du statut conféré par la protection subsidiaire à un apatride, et ce en raison d’une appréciation erronée des besoins de protection internationale dont elle est seule responsable ? 24 January 2019 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - Complementary forms of protection - Exclusion clauses - Statelessness | Countries: Algeria - Austria |
E.G. v Slovenia, C-662/17
The second subparagraph of Article 46(2) 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 subsidiary protection status, granted under legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not offer the ‘same rights and benefits as those offered by the refugee status under Union and national law’, within the meaning of that provision, so that a court of that Member State may not dismiss an appeal brought against a decision considering an application unfounded in relation to refugee status but granting subsidiary protection status as inadmissible on the grounds of insufficient interest on the part of the applicant in maintaining the proceedings where it is found that, under the applicable national legislation, those rights and benefits afforded by each international protection status are not genuinely identical. Such an appeal may not be dismissed as inadmissible, even if it is found that, having regard to the applicant’s particular circumstances, granting refugee status could not confer on him more rights and benefits than granting subsidiary protection status, in so far as the applicant does not, or has not yet, relied on rights which are granted by virtue of refugee status, but which are not granted, or are granted only to a limited extent, by virtue of subsidiary protection status. 18 October 2018 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Decision on admissibility - Effective remedy | Countries: Afghanistan - Slovenia |
E. G. c. Republika Slovenija, C-662/17
On 18 October, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment on a preliminary reference submitted by the Slovenian Supreme Court, on the difference between refugee and subsidiary protection statuses. The need for a preliminary ruling arose in the context of asylum proceedings, where a minor national of Afghanistan was granted subsidiary protection status, following several unsuccessful legal challenges. When the issue was brought before the Supreme Court of Slovenia, the domestic judges decided to refer a question to the CJEU regarding the admissibility of the applicant’s appeal against his subsidiary protection status in the context of sufficient interest, according to Article 46 (2) of Directive 2013/32/EU. The question was centred on the difference in cessation and duration requirements of the two statuses, as well as the ancillary rights thereof. The Court first noted that the recitals of Directive 2011/95/EU indicate that EU legislators intended to establish an integral framework for all beneficiaries of international protection, save for objectively necessary exceptions for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status. After analysing the content of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Court stated that this article sets a requirement for a restrictive interpretation of any exception from the right to an effective remedy before a court, such as the one introduced by the aforementioned article of Directive 2013/32/EU. As such, for a subsidiary protection beneficiary’s action to be deemed inadmissible due to lack of sufficient interest, the rights and benefits granted must indeed be the same as those the applicant would enjoy if they held refugee status, even if the difference only encompasses ancillary rights. Moreover, a difference between the duration of the two statuses has to be regarded as difference in rights and benefits that justifies an admissible legal challenge. Lastly, any relevant assessment on the existence of different rights and benefits for international protection beneficiaries should not depend on the appellant’s individual situation, but rather on an overall assessment of national legislation. According to the Court’s restrictive interpretation, this is dictated by the text of Article 46 (2), as well as the need for the predictability of this legal provision, which would vary unacceptably according to each applicant’s personal circumstances. ELENA Weekly Legal Update - 19 October 2018 18 October 2018 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Decision on admissibility - Effective remedy | Countries: Afghanistan - Slovenia |
Ordinanza n. 22233/18
2 September 2018 | Judicial Body: Italy: Italian Supreme Court (Corte Suprema di Cassazione) | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Country of origin information (COI) - Religious discrimination | Countries: Italy - Pakistan |
MP v Secretary of State for the Home Department (C‑353/16) (reference for preliminary ruling)
interpretation of Articles 2(e) and 15(b) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 24 April 2018 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Mental health - Torture | Countries: Sri Lanka - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
Décision N° 17045561, 9 March 2018
Afghanistan: In Kabul, a high-intensity situation of indiscriminate violence resulting from an internal armed conflict allows granting a civilian the benefit of subsidiary protection under Article L. 712-1 (c) of the CESEDA. 9 March 2018 | Judicial Body: France: Cour nationale du droit d'asile | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Generalized violence | Countries: Afghanistan - France |
Décision N° 17045561, 9 March 2018
Afghanistan: In Kabul, a high-intensity situation of indiscriminate violence resulting from an internal armed conflict allows granting a civilian the benefit of subsidiary protection under Article L. 712-1 (c) of the CESEDA. 9 March 2018 | Judicial Body: France: Cour nationale du droit d'asile | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Generalized violence | Countries: Afghanistan - France |
Décision N° 17045561, 9 March 2018
Afghanistan: In Kabul, a high-intensity situation of indiscriminate violence resulting from an internal armed conflict allows granting a civilian the benefit of subsidiary protection under Article L. 712-1 (c) of the CESEDA. 9 March 2018 | Judicial Body: France: Cour nationale du droit d'asile | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Generalized violence | Countries: Afghanistan - France |
A.L. v Russia
30 November 2017 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Expulsion - Refoulement | Countries: Russian Federation - South Sudan |