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/
Filter:
Showing 1-10 of 198 results
M.A. v Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnyba, Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas, Case C-72/22 PPU

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 | Document type: Case Law | 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

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

NB and AB (C-349/20) v SSHD (UK)

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 12(1)(a) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12).

3 March 2022 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 2004 Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Article 1D - Palestinian - Persons with disabilities - Statelessness - UNRWA | Countries: Lebanon - Palestine, State of - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

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

XY v Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl Case C-18/20

preliminary ruling on interpretation of article 40 Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection

9 September 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Austria - Iraq

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

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

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

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

Search Refworld

Advanced Search | Search Tips
UNHCR logo