UNHCR is not responsible for the content and availability of non-UNHCR websites. Content displays in a new window.
ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5664
4 June 2021 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: The Hague District Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Article 1D - Palestinian - UNRWA | Countries: Lebanon - Netherlands - Palestine, State of |
The Impact of COVID-19 on Stateless Populations: Policy recommendations and good practices on vaccine access and civil registration
3 June 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports |
Background Note on Gender Equality, Nationality Laws and Statelessness 2021
5 March 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports |
Bundesrepublik Deutschland v XT, Case C‑507/19, Request for a preliminary ruling
1. The second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether the protection or assistance from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has ceased, it is necessary to take into account, as part of an individual assessment of all the relevant factors of the situation in question, all the fields of UNRWA’s area of operations which a stateless person of Palestinian origin who has left that area has a concrete possibility of accessing and safely remaining therein. 2. The second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95 must be interpreted as meaning that UNRWA’s protection or assistance cannot be regarded as having ceased where a stateless person of Palestinian origin left the UNRWA area of operations from a field in that area in which his or her personal safety was at serious risk and in which UNRWA was not in a position to provide that individual with protection or assistance, first, if that individual voluntarily travelled to that field from another field in that area in which his or her personal safety was not at serious risk and in which he or she could receive protection or assistance from UNRWA and, secondly, if he or she could not reasonably expect, on the basis of the specific information available to him or her, to receive protection or assistance from UNRWA in the field to which he or she travelled or to be able to return at short notice to the field from which he or she came, which is for the national court to verify. 13 January 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 2011 Recast Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Exclusion clauses - Palestinian - Statelessness | Countries: Germany - Lebanon - Syrian Arab Republic |
A,B, and C v. the Swedish Migration Agency
In an overall assessment of the exceptional circumstances in A's case and with special regard to her very strong connection to Sweden, the Court considers that her best interests outweigh the opposing interests of the State. An expulsion of A to Lebanon can therefore not be consid-ered proportionate and would thus be in violation of the CRC. A is therefore granted a residence permit in Sweden. B and C are granted residence permits as it would be in violation of Article 8 of the ECHR to separate the family. 22 December 2020 | Judicial Body: Sweden: Migration Court of Appeal (Migrationsöverdomstolen) | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Children's rights - Right to family life | Countries: Lebanon - Sweden |
Campaign Update, July 2020 - September 2020
14 October 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country News |
Statement on the Interpretation and Application of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention and Article 12(1)(a) of the EU Qualification Directive
Issued in the context of the preliminary ruling reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 3 July 2019 – Federal Republic of Germany v XT (C-507/19)
18 August 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae |
Background Note on Gender Equality, Nationality Laws and Statelessness 2020
14 July 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports |
Lebanon: UNHCR Submission for the Universal Periodic Review - Lebanon - UPR 37th Session (2021)
July 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country Reports |
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 |