Case Law

In view of the above, the Court notes that the risk of the applicant being expelled and, potentially, being exposed to a risk of treatment in breach of Article 3, has now, at least temporarily, been removed. Moreover, the Court finds that the complaints under Article 13 and on the procedural requirements of Article 3 in the present case are in essence inextricably connected to the proposed expulsion of the applicant (see Nasseri v the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24239/09, § 18, 13 October 2015, and J.W. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 16177/14, § 32, 27 June 2017). In these circumstances, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)). Moreover, it is satisfied that respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto, does not require a continuation of the application by virtue of Article 37 § 1 in fine. Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the list.

21 October 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Human rights law - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Afghanistan - Netherlands

On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules: 1. 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, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which any document submitted by an applicant for international protection in support of a subsequent application is automatically considered not to constitute a ‘new element or finding’, within the meaning of that provision, when the authenticity of that document cannot be established or its source objectively verified. 2. Article 40 of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 2011/95, must be interpreted as meaning, first, that the assessment of the evidence submitted in support of an application for international protection cannot vary according to whether the application is a first application or a subsequent application and, second, that a Member State is required to cooperate with an applicant for the purpose of assessing the relevant elements of his or her subsequent application, when that applicant submits, in support of that application, documents the authenticity of which cannot be established.

10 June 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Credibility assessment - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Afghanistan - Netherlands

4 June 2021 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: The Hague District Court | Topic(s): Article 1D - Palestinian - UNRWA | Countries: Lebanon - Netherlands - Palestine, State of