Case Law

The Court, ruling under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure, holds that the Procedures Directive (4) precludes legislation of a Member State under which, in the event of a declaration of a state of war or a state of emergency or in the event of a declaration of an emergency due to a mass influx of foreigners, illegally staying third-country nationals are, de facto, denied the opportunity of having access to the procedure for examining an application for international protection in the territory of that Member State. Furthermore, the Court holds that the Reception Directive (5) precludes legislation of a Member State under which, in the event of such a declaration, an applicant for asylum may be detained on the sole ground that he or she is staying in the territory of that Member State illegally.

30 June 2022 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2013 Recast Asylum Procedures Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Immigration Detention - Reception - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Right to liberty and security - State of emergency | Countries: Lithuania

Accordingly, the Court finds that the refusal to issue the applicant with an alien’s passport was taken without carrying out a balancing exercise and without ensuring that such a measure was justified and proportionate in his individual situation (see, mutatis mutandis, Pfeifer, cited above, § 57). That refusal was based on formalistic grounds, namely that he had not demonstrated that he was personally at risk of persecution and that he was not considered a beneficiary of asylum at that time, without adequate examination of the situation in his country of origin, as well as on the purported possibility of obtaining a Russian passport, without any assessment of whether that possibility was accessible to him in practice in view of his particular circumstances. 97. In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that it has not been demonstrated that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of movement was necessary in a democratic society. 98. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.

16 June 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Travel documents | Countries: Lithuania

1. The present cases concern restrictions on the freedom of expression and association of Russian non-governmental organisations (NGOs) which have been categorised as “foreign agents” funded by “foreign sources” and exercising “political activity”.

14 June 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Freedom of assembly and association - Freedom of expression | Countries: Russian Federation

1. La requête concerne le possible renvoi au Pakistan du requérant, ressortissant de ce pays, s’étant converti de l’islam au christianisme en Suisse, suite au rejet de sa demande d’asile. Le requérant se plaint que son renvoi lui ferait courir un risque réel pour sa vie ou d’être soumis à des mauvais traitements et que sa liberté de religion serait considérablement entravée.

26 April 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Expulsion - Freedom of religion - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) | Countries: Pakistan - Switzerland

This decision replaces all existing country guidance on Iraq.

22 April 2022 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Legal Instrument: 2011 Recast Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): EU Qualification Directive - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Kurd - Travel documents | Countries: Iraq - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

1. The case concerns removal of the applicant to Tajikistan, in breach of an interim measure issued by the Court, and the conditions and lawfulness of the applicant’s detention pending removal. Articles 3, 5 and 34 of the Convention are, principally, invoked.

29 March 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Expulsion - Extradition - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Russian Federation - Tajikistan

Is it reasonable for the RPD to rely upon evidence of the refugee’s lack of subjective [let alone any] knowledge that use of a passport confers diplomatic protection to rebut the presumption that a refugee who acquires and travels on a passport issued by their country of origin has intended to avail themselves of that state’s protection? Yes. Is it reasonable for the RPD to rely upon evidence that a refugee took measures to protect themselves against their agent of persecution [or that of their family member who is the principal refugee applicant] to rebut the presumption that a refugee who acquires [or renews] a passport issued by their country of origin and uses it to return to their country of origin has intended to avail themselves of that state’s protection? Yes.

29 March 2022 | Judicial Body: Canada: Federal Court of Appeal | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - Diplomatic protection - Passports | Countries: Canada - Colombia

22 March 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Rejected asylum-seekers | Countries: Lithuania - Tajikistan