Case Law

Article 46(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, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, where a first-instance court or tribunal has found — after making a full and ex nunc examination of all the relevant elements of fact and law submitted by an applicant for international protection — that, under the criteria laid down by 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, that applicant must be granted such protection on the ground that he or she relied on in support of his or her application, but after which the administrative or quasi-judicial body adopts a contrary decision without establishing that new elements have arisen that justify a new assessment of the international protection needs of the applicant, that court or tribunal must vary that decision which does not comply with its previous judgment and substitute its own decision for it as to the application for international protection, disapplying as necessary the national law that would prohibit it from proceeding in that way.

29 July 2019 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Administrative law - Effective remedy | Countries: Hungary - Russian Federation

5 March 2015 | Judicial Body: Australia: Federal Court | Topic(s): Acts of persecution - Administrative law - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness - Visas | Countries: Australia - Nepal

11 February 2015 | Judicial Body: Australia: High Court | Topic(s): Administrative law - Appeal / Right to appeal - Arrival - Flight by land, air or sea - Humanitarian protection (including tolerated stay) - Migrants - Refugees - Visas | Countries: Australia

18 December 2014 | Judicial Body: Ireland: High Court | Topic(s): Administrative law - Appeal / Right to appeal - Effective remedy - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Congo, Democratic Republic of the - Ireland

3 November 2014 | Judicial Body: Australia: Federal Court | Topic(s): Administrative law - Flight by land, air or sea - Torture | Countries: Australia - Sri Lanka

26 September 2014 | Judicial Body: South Africa: High Court | Topic(s): 1951 Refugee Convention - Administrative law - Appeal / Right to appeal - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Well-founded fear of persecution | Countries: Rwanda - South Africa

This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

18 June 2014 | Judicial Body: Australia: High Court | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Administrative law - Arrival - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Australia - Iran, Islamic Republic of

24 April 2013 | Judicial Body: Colombia: Corte Constitucional | Topic(s): Administrative law - Internally displaced persons (IDPs) | Countries: Colombia

13 January 2012 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: Council of State (Raad van State) | Topic(s): Administrative law - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) - Persecution on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity - Social group persecution - Standard of proof | Countries: Iran, Islamic Republic of - Netherlands

Judgement from the High Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division.

12 December 2006 | Judicial Body: South Africa: High Court | Topic(s): Administrative law - Refugee / Asylum law - Rejected asylum-seekers | Countries: South Africa - Zimbabwe