Last Updated: Tuesday, 06 June 2023, 11:08 GMT

Legal Information

Selected filters: Belgium
Filter:
Showing 1-10 of 328 results
XXXX contre Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides, C-483/20

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 18 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), Articles 2, 20, 23 and 31 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 (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9), and of Article 25(6) and Article 33(2)(a) 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 (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).

22 February 2022 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 2011 Recast Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Family reunification - Right to family life - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Austria - Belgium - Syrian Arab Republic

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

Arrest nr 260 333

7 September 2021 | Judicial Body: Belgium: Conseil du Contentieux des Etrangers | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Exclusion clauses - Forced marriage - Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription - Serious non-political crime | Countries: Belgium - Syrian Arab Republic

Arrêt No. 253 776 du 30 Avril 2021 dans l'affaire 253 551 / X

5 May 2021 | Judicial Body: Belgium: Conseil du Contentieux des Etrangers | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Domestic violence | Countries: Belgium - Türkiye

H.A. v État belge (case C-194/19)

The court ruled that states must take into account circumstances arising after a transfer decision. See the decision for more details.

15 April 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Family reunification | Countries: Belgium

Arrêt n° 23/2021 du 25 février 2021

The court annulled parts of the recently amended Belgian legislation by finding: 1) refugees cannot be prosecuted based on illegal entry or stay, 2) asking refugees to deposit their original documents for the entirety of the procedure violated their right to privacy, 3) the provision regarding detention is justified for purposes of investigation prior to admission, and 4) the shortened appeal period (from 15 to 10 days) was not unconstitutional. The court annulled 7 provisions and clarified 7 others.

25 February 2021 | Judicial Body: Belgium: Cour constitutionnelle | Document type: Case Law | Countries: Belgium

Commentaires du Haut Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés concernant la proposition de résolution relative à l'instauration d'un modèle de migration européen à visage humain permettant de lutter effectivement contre le trafic d'êtres humains et la migration illégale du 30 septembre 2020 déposée par M. Theo Francken et consorts (DOC 55 1543/001)

15 January 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation

AFFAIRE M.A. c. BELGIQUE (Requête no 19656/18)

The case concerned the applicant’s removal to Sudan by the Belgian authorities in spite of a court decision ordering the suspension of the measure. The Court found in particular that on account of procedural defects attributable to the Belgian authorities prior to the applicant’s removal to Sudan, he had been prevented from pursuing the asylum application that he had lodged in Belgium and the Belgian authorities had not sufficiently assessed the real risks that he faced in Sudan. In addition, by deporting the applicant in spite of the court order to suspend the measure, the authorities had rendered ineffective the applicant’s successful appeal.

27 October 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Effective remedy - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Suspensive effect | Countries: Belgium - Sudan

M.N. and Others against Belgium (Application no. 3599/18) Grand Chamber Decision

The Court reiterated that Article 1 (obligation to respect human rights) of the European Convention limited its scope to persons within the jurisdiction of the States Parties to the Convention. In the present case, it noted that the applicants were not within Belgium’s jurisdiction in respect of the circumstances complained of under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. The Court also considered that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was inapplicable in the present case. The entry to Belgian territory which would have resulted from the visas being issued did not engage a “civil” right within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. Lastly, the Court noted that this conclusion did not prejudice the endeavours being made by the States Parties to facilitate access to asylum procedures through their embassies and/or consular representations.

5 May 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Decision on admissibility - Effective remedy - Jurisdiction - Visas | Countries: Belgium - Lebanon - Syrian Arab Republic

Avis concernant la proposition de loi n° 55 0574/001 modifiant la loi du 15 décembre 1980 sur l'accès au territoire, le séjour, l'établissement et l'éloignement des étrangers en ce qui concerne la réglementation relative au regroupement familial

12 December 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation

Search Refworld