Case Law
|
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 | 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 | 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 |
|
Conclusions de l'avocat Général M. Paolo Mengozzi: X, X c. État belge
7 February 2017 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Family reunification - Right to family life | Countries: Belgium - Syrian Arab Republic |
|
A.S. v. Switzerland
30 June 2015 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Burden-sharing and international co-operation - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) - Regional instruments - Right to family life | Countries: Italy - Switzerland - Syrian Arab Republic |
|
M.E. v. Denmark
8 July 2014 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Palestinian - Right to family life - Statelessness | Countries: Denmark - Syrian Arab Republic |
|
ST and ET v. Secretary of State for the Home Department; and Secretary of State for the Home Department v. C1 and C2
28 February 2014 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Topic(s): Mandate status - Persons of concern to UNHCR - Resettlement - Right to family life - UNHCR mandate | Countries: Iran, Islamic Republic of - Iraq - Syrian Arab Republic - Türkiye - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
|
Fawsie c. Grèce
28 October 2010 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Refugees - Right to family life | Countries: Greece - Syrian Arab Republic |
|
RRT Case No. 0903507
2 October 2009 | Judicial Body: Australia: Refugee Review Tribunal | Topic(s): Civil and political rights - Jehovah's Witness - Non-state agents of persecution - Persecution based on political opinion - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) - Right to family life - State protection | Countries: Australia |
|
Mahmoud Walid Nakrash and Liu Qifen v. Sweden
Display in UN document template Original: ENGLISH 19 October 2008 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Topic(s): Country of origin information (COI) - Deportation / Forcible return - Expulsion - Refoulement - Right to family life | Countries: Sweden |
|
Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria
The judgment became final on 20 September 2002. 20 June 2002 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Effective remedy - Immigration law - Right to family life - Right to liberty and security - Rights of non-citizens - Statelessness | Countries: Bulgaria - Kuwait - Syrian Arab Republic |
