UNHCR is not responsible for the content and availability of non-UNHCR websites. Content displays in a new window.
K v Landkreis Gifhorn, Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover, Case C-519/20
La demande de décision préjudicielle porte sur l’interprétation de l’article 16, paragraphe 1, et de l’article 18 de la directive 2008/115/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil, du 16 décembre 2008, relative aux normes et procédures communes applicables dans les États membres au retour des ressortissants de pays tiers en séjour irrégulier (JO 2008, L 348, p. 98). 10 March 2022 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 2008 Returns Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Emergency legislation - Expulsion - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Germany - Pakistan |
VG Braunschweig 2. Kammer, Beschluss vom 25.02.2022, 2 B 27/22
Systemic flaws in the Croatian asylum procedure due to violent push-backs 1. There is considerable evidence that Croatian authorities through forced returns to Bosnia-Herzegovina specifically thwart the right to apply for asylum and thus violate the non-refoulement principle. 2. Croatian police officers regularly use physical and psychological violence when performing push-backs. 3. Due to Croatia's participation in chain deportations from other EU countries, it cannot be ruled out that Dublin returnees from Germany will also become victims of push-backs. 25 February 2022 | Judicial Body: Germany: Verwaltungsgericht | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Croatia - Germany - Iran, Islamic Republic of |
VG Hannover 12. Kammer, Beschluss vom 23.02.2022, 12 B 6475/21
Decision in German available here: http://www.rechtsprechung.niedersachsen.juris.de/jportal/?quelle=jlink&docid=MWRE220005233&psml=bsndprod.psml&max=true 23 February 2022 | Judicial Body: Germany: Verwaltungsgericht | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Suspensive effect | Countries: Germany - Lithuania |
OVG Lüneburg 4. Senat, Beschluss vom 09.02.2022, 4 LA 74/20,
9 February 2022 | Judicial Body: Germany: Oberverwaltungsgericht | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Gender-based persecution - Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription - Social group persecution - Women-at-risk | Countries: Eritrea - Germany |
VGH BW, Urteil vom 27.01.2022 – A 4 S 2443/21 –, Juris
27 January 2022 | Judicial Body: Germany: Verwaltungsgericht | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 2013 Recast Asylum Procedures Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Decision on admissibility - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Housing, land and property rights (HLP) | Countries: Germany - Greece - Syrian Arab Republic |
Bundesrepublik Deutschland v SE,Case C-768/19
The request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 2 (j) of Directive 2011/95 / EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 concerning the standards relating to the conditions to be met by third country nationals or stateless persons in order to benefit from international protection, to a uniform status for refugees or persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and to the content of this protection 9 September 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 2011 Recast Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Afghanistan - Germany |
Beschluss der 10. Kammer vom 25. August 2021 (VG 10 L 285/21 V)
protection claim based on previous cooperation with organization 25 August 2021 | Judicial Body: Germany: Verwaltungsgericht | Document type: Case Law | Countries: Afghanistan - Germany |
EASO Age assessment practices in EU+ countries:
updated findings
July 2021 | Publisher: European Union: European Asylum Support Office (EASO) | Document type: Thematic Reports |
DN v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules: 1. Article 15(c) 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 the interpretation of national legislation according to which, where a civilian is not specifically targeted by reason of factors particular to his or her personal circumstances, a finding of serious and individual threat to that civilian’s life or person by reason of ‘indiscriminate violence in situations of … armed conflict’, within the meaning of that provision, is subject to the condition that the ratio between the number of casualties in the relevant area and the total number of individuals composing the population of that area reach a fixed threshold. 2. Article 15(c) of Directive 2011/95 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether there is a ‘serious and individual threat’, within the meaning of that provision, a comprehensive appraisal of all the circumstances of the individual case, in particular those which characterise the situation of the applicant’s country of origin, is required. 10 June 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Generalized violence - International protection | Countries: Afghanistan - Germany |
L.R. v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby rules: Article 33(2)(d) 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 2(q) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides for the possibility of rejecting as inadmissible an application for international protection, within the meaning of Article 2(b) of that directive, made to that Member State by a third-country national or a stateless person whose previous application seeking the grant of refugee status, made to a third State implementing Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, in accordance with the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Iceland or Norway – Declarations, had been rejected by that third State. 20 May 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Secondary movement | Countries: Germany - Iran, Islamic Republic of |