Decision 202101105/1/V1
3 January 2022 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: Council of State (Raad van State) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Article 1D - Palestinian - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Statelessness - UNRWA | Countries: Iraq - Netherlands |
Case of M.J. v. The Netherlands (Application no. 49259/18)
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 | Document type: Case Law | 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 |
LH v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
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 | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Credibility assessment - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Afghanistan - Netherlands |
Applicant v. State Secretary for Security and Justice
19 October 2020 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: The Hague District Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Housing, land and property rights (HLP) - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Right to education | Countries: Bulgaria - Netherlands - Syrian Arab Republic |
CASE OF A.S.N. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
(Applications nos. 68377/17 and 530/18)
Art 3 ECHR • Expulsion • No risk of ill-treatment in case of removal of Afghan Sikhs to Afghanistan • Adequate assessment of the risks by the domestic authorities • No compelling humanitarian grounds against removal. See also joint partly dissenting opinion on the assessment by the domestic authorities of the foreseeable consequences of the applications to Afghanistan. 25 February 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | 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 - Sikh | Countries: Afghanistan - Netherlands |
Submission by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
in the case of M.J. v. the Netherlands (application no. 49259/18) before the European Court of Human Rights
6 December 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae |
Opinion of Advocate General Bot: A.S. v. Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
16 November 2017 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Family reunification - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Right to family life - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Netherlands |
K. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
14 September 2017 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Immigration Detention - Proof of nationality - Reception - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Iran, Islamic Republic of - Netherlands |
Current migration situation in the EU: Oversight of
reception facilities
September 2017 | Publisher: European Union: European Agency for Fundamental Rights | Document type: Regional Reports |
Accelerated, prioritised and fast-track asylum procedures Legal frameworks and practice in Europe
May 2017 | Publisher: European Council on Refugees and Exiles | Document type: Regional Reports |