UNHCR is not responsible for the content and availability of non-UNHCR websites. Content displays in a new window.
A.M. (au nom de M.K.A.H.) c. Suisse
Discrimination; intérêt supérieur de l’enfant; développement de l’enfant; droit de l’enfant d’être entendu dans toute procédure judiciaire ou administrative l’intéressant; protection et assistance humanitaire voulues pour les enfants réfugiés; droit de l’enfant de jouir du meilleur état de santé possible; traitements inhumains ou dégradants 6 October 2021 | Judicial Body: UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Children's rights - Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness - Statelessness | Countries: Bulgaria - Switzerland - 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 |
CASE OF M.D. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 71321/17 and 9 others – see appended list)
Relying on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition on inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants complain that their expulsion to Syria would put them at grave physical risk. Some of the applicants also complain under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that they had no effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 2 and 3 that their detention pending removal was arbitrary and the examination of their complaints against detention orders was not speedy. 14 September 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Effective remedy - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Non-refoulement - Right to life | Countries: Russian Federation - 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 |
Decisions 202005934/1 and 202006295/1
28 July 2021 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: Council of State (Raad van State) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Livelihoods - Return conditions | Countries: Greece - Netherlands - Syrian Arab Republic |
Decision 202006295/1/V3 and decision 202005934/1/V3
28 July 2021 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: Council of State (Raad van State) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Livelihoods - Return conditions | Countries: Greece - Netherlands - Syrian Arab Republic |
M.A. v. Denmark
194. Having regard to all the above considerations, the Court is not satisfied, notwithstanding their margin of appreciation, that the authorities of the respondent State, when subjecting the applicant to a three-year waiting period before he could apply for family reunification with his wife, struck a fair balance between, on the one hand, the applicant’s interest in being reunited with his wife in Denmark and, on the other, the interest of the community as a whole to control immigration with a view to protect the economic well-being of the country, to ensure the effective integration of those granted protection and to preserve social cohesion (see paragraph 165 above). 195. It follows that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. 9 July 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Family reunification | Countries: Denmark - Syrian Arab Republic |
#IBelong Campaign Update, April 2021 - June 2021
9 July 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country News |
D.A. and Others v. Poland
The court unanimously: Declares the application admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants being denied access to the asylum procedure and exposed to a risk of inhuman and degrading treatment and torture in Syria; Holds that it is not necessary to examine whether there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ treatment by the Polish authorities during border checks; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention; Holds that Poland has failed to discharge its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention; Decides to continue to indicate to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that it is desirable in the interests of the proper conduct of the proceedings not to remove the applicants to Belarus – if and when they present themselves at the Polish border crossing – until such time as the present judgment becomes final, or until a further decision is made; Holds (a) that the respondent State is to pay to each of the three applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros), to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. 8 July 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Poland - Syrian Arab Republic |
The Office of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ('UNHCR')
Statement on family reunification for beneficiaries of international protection Issued in the context of the preliminary ruling reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union in
the case of CR, GF, TY v. Landeshauptmann von Wien (C-560/20)
22 June 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae |