Last Updated: Tuesday, 23 May 2023, 12:44 GMT
Refworld Home
Latest Refworld Updates for Netherlands RSS feed

Netherlands - flag Netherlands

UNHCR is not responsible for the content and availability of non-UNHCR websites. Content displays in a new window.

Filter:
Showing 21-30 of 935 results
Decision 202002809/1 / V2

A reassessment of Mongolia as a safe country of origin for an LGBTI asylum-seeker did not meet Dutch law standards.

7 April 2021 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: Council of State (Raad van State) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) | Countries: Mongolia - Netherlands

Opinion of Advocate General Hogan, delivered on 11 February 2021, Case C‑921/19, LH v. Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

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

TQ v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, Case C‑441/19, request for preliminary ruling

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

Campaign Update, October 2020 - December 2020

11 January 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country News

Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. Communication No. 2918/2016

28 December 2020 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Citizenship / Nationality law - Statelessness | Countries: Netherlands

Proposed Decree of …., containing integration requirements for the granting of Dutch citizenship (Naturalization Test Decree 2021)

30 November 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation

Observations to Proposed amendments to the Dutch Aliens Decree in relation to arranging the registration phase, the cancellation of the first hearing in the general asylum procedure and the implementation of several technical amendments

18 November 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation

Submission by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in case numbers 202003129/1/V2 and 202004875/1/V2 before the Council of State

17 November 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae

Applicant v. State Secretary for Security and Justice

19 October 2020 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: The Hague District Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Housing, land and property rights (HLP) - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Right to education | Countries: Bulgaria - Netherlands - Syrian Arab Republic

Rechtbank Den Haag, 24-08-2020 / NL20.6600

decision not final

24 August 2020 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: Amsterdam District Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Palestinian | Countries: Netherlands - Palestine, State of

Search Refworld

Advanced Search | Search Tips
UNHCR logo