European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union

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

(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

In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should answer the first and second questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Higher Administrative Court, Baden-Württemberg, Germany) as follows: 1. Article 15(c), read in conjunction with Article 2(f), 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 precluding a national practice whereby a finding of serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of armed conflict, within the meaning of that provision, can be made, in a case where that civilian is not specifically targeted by reason of factors particular to his or her circumstances, only if the ratio between the number of casualties in the area in question and the total number of individuals making up the population of that area reaches a fixed threshold. 2. In order to verify the level of the degree of indiscriminate violence of the armed conflict, for the purposes of determining whether there is a real risk of serious harm within the meaning of Article 15(c) of Directive 2011/95, it is necessary to carry out a comprehensive assessment, both quantitative and qualitative in nature, of all relevant facts characterising that conflict, based on the collection of objective, reliable and up-to-date information including, in particular, the geographical scope of the situation of indiscriminate violence, the actual destination of the applicant in the event that he or she is returned to the relevant country or region, the intensity of the armed confrontations, the duration of the conflict, the level of organisation of the armed forces involved, the number of civilians killed, injured or displaced as a result of the fighting, and the nature of the methods or tactics of warfare employed by the parties to the conflict.

24 February 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): EU Qualification Directive | Countries: Afghanistan - Germany

The maintenance by a determining authority of a Member State of a practice whereby original documents can never constitute new elements or findings for the purposes of a subsequent asylum application if the authenticity of those documents cannot be established is incompatible with Article 40(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, read in conjunction with Article 4(2) 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. There is no difference between copies of documents or documents originating from a non-objectively verifiable source submitted by an applicant in a subsequent application in so far as all documents have to be considered carefully and rigorously on an individual basis in order to ascertain whether they significantly add to the likelihood that the applicant qualifies as a beneficiary of international protection and in order to prevent a person from being expelled if he or she faces an individual and real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 2. Article 40 of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 4(2) of Directive 2011/95, cannot be interpreted as permitting a determining authority of a Member State, when assessing documents and assigning probative value to such documents, to distinguish between documents submitted in an initial application and those submitted in a subsequent application. A Member State, when assessing documents in a subsequent application, is obliged to cooperate with the applicant to the same extent as in the initial procedure.

11 February 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Fresh / New claim - Refugee / Asylum law | Countries: Afghanistan - Netherlands

On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby rules: (1) Article 11(1)(e) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirements to be met by the ‘protection’ to which that provision refers in respect of the cessation of refugee status must be the same as those which arise, in relation to the granting of that status, from Article 2(c) of that directive, read together with Article 7(1) and (2) thereof. (2) Article 11(1)(e) of Directive 2004/83, read together with Article 7(2) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that any social and financial support provided by private actors, such as the family or the clan of a third country national concerned, falls short of what is required under those provisions to constitute protection and is, therefore, of no relevance either to the assessment of the effectiveness or availability of the protection provided by the State within the meaning of Article 7(1)(a) of that directive, or to the determination, under Article 11(1)(e) of that directive, read together with Article 2(c) thereof, of whether there continues to be a well-founded fear of persecution.

20 January 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - State protection | Countries: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

1. Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in conjunction with Article 5(a) of that directive and Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, before issuing a return decision against an unaccompanied minor, the Member State concerned must carry out a general and in-depth assessment of the situation of that minor, taking due account of the best interests of the child. In this context, that Member State must ensure that adequate reception facilities are available for the unaccompanied minor in question in the State of return. 2. Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/115, read in conjunction with Article 5(a) of that directive and in the light of Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may not distinguish between unaccompanied minors solely on the basis of the criterion of their age for the purpose of ascertaining whether there are adequate reception facilities in the State of return. 3. Article 8(1) of Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as precluding a Member State, after it has adopted a return decision in respect of an unaccompanied minor and has been satisfied, in accordance with Article 10(2) of that directive, that that minor will be returned to a member of his or her family, a nominated guardian or adequate reception facilities in the State of return, from refraining from subsequently removing that minor until he or she reaches the age of 18 years.

14 January 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 2008 Returns Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Children's rights - Deportation / Forcible return - Reception - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Guinea - Netherlands

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

Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations: – in providing that applications for international protection from third-country nationals or stateless persons who, arriving from Serbia, wish to access, in its territory, the international protection procedure, may be made only in the transit zones of Röszke and Tompa, while adopting a consistent and generalised administrative practice drastically limiting the number of applicants authorised to enter those transit zones daily; – in establishing a system of systematic detention of applicants for international protection in the transit zones of Röszke and Tompa, without observing the guarantees provided for in Article 24(3) and Article 43 of Directive 2013/32 and Articles 8, 9 and 11 of Directive 2013/33; – in allowing the removal of all third-country nationals staying illegally in its territory, with the exception of those of them who are suspected of having committed a criminal offence, without observing the procedures and safeguards laid down in Article 5, Article 6(1), Article 12(1) and Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/115; – in making the exercise by applicants for international protection who fall within the scope of Article 46(5) of Directive 2013/32 of their right to remain in its territory subject to conditions contrary to EU law.

17 December 2020 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Illegal entry - Immigration Detention | Countries: Hungary

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 9(2)(e) and (3) 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).

19 November 2020 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 2011 Recast Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription | Countries: Germany - Syrian Arab Republic

1 October 2020 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Article 1D - Palestinian - UNRWA | Countries: Germany - Lebanon - Palestine, State of - Syrian Arab Republic