Last Updated: Thursday, 29 September 2022, 11:15 GMT
Refworld Home

European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union

To ensure that the law is enforced, understood and uniformly applied in all Member States, a judicial institution is essential. That institution is the Court of Justice of the European Communities. It is composed of three courts: the Court of Justice (created in 1952), the Court of First Instance (created in 1988) and the Civil Service Tribunal (created in 2004). The Court of Justice of the European Communities, together with the national courts, thus constitutes the European Community’s judiciary. The Court’s main task is to interpret Community law uniformly and to rule on its validity. It answers questions referred to it by the national courts, which play a vital role, as they apply Community law at local level. The judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Communities — together with the treaties, regulations, directives and decisions — make up Community law.  Website: curia.europa.eu/en/
Selected filters: Belgium
Filter:
Showing 1-10 of 19 results
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 | Document type: Case Law | 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 | 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

H.A. v État belge (case C-194/19)

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

K. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (C‑331/16), and H. F. v Belgische Staat (C‑366/16) (reference for preliminary ruling)

interpretation of the second subparagraph of Article 27(2), Article 28(1) and Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States

2 May 2018 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Exclusion clauses - National security / Public order | Countries: Afghanistan - Belgium - Bosnia and Herzegovina - Croatia - Netherlands

ADDITIONAL OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL MENGOZZI in case C-181/16 Sadikou Gnandi v État belge (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (Council of State, Belgium))

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2008/115/EC — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Order for removal from national territory — Order issued after the rejection of the asylum application by the competent administrative authority — Reopening of the oral procedure

22 February 2018 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 2008 Returns Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Illegal immigrants / Undocumented migrants | Countries: Belgium - Togo

X and X v. État belge

7 March 2017 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Refugee / Asylum law - Visas | Countries: Belgium - Syrian Arab Republic

Conclusions de l'avocat Général M. Paolo Mengozzi: X c État belge

7 February 2017 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Torture - Visas | Countries: Belgium

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 | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Family reunification - Right to family life | Countries: Belgium - Syrian Arab Republic

Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides v. Mostafa Lounani

31 January 2017 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Exclusion clauses - Terrorism | Countries: Belgium - Morocco

Conclusions de l'avocat Général M. Paolo Mengozzi de l'avocat : X.,X. c. État belge

7 January 2017 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Refugee / Asylum law | Countries: Belgium - Syrian Arab Republic

Search Refworld

Advanced Search | Search Tips
UNHCR logo