Last Updated: Wednesday, 17 May 2023, 15:20 GMT

Case Law

Case Law includes national and international jurisprudential decisions. Administrative bodies and tribunals are included.
Filter:
Showing 51-60 of 12,676 results
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 | 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

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 | 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 | 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

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 | Legal Instrument: 2011 Recast Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Family reunification - Right to family life - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Austria - Belgium - Syrian Arab Republic

THE QUEEN, on the application of SB (a child, by his litigation friend Roxanne Nanton of the Refugee Council) Claimant - and - ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON & CHELSEA Defendant

The issue in the case focuses on the Defendant's determination of whether the Claimant is a child, as the effect of such a finding has an impact on a number of aspects of how he will be treated within the United Kingdom. The precise terms of the issue are themselves disputed: (1) The Claimant submits that his case is a challenge to the lawfulness of the decision of the Defendant, on 11 June 2021 ["the June determination"], that he was not a child. (2) The Defendant argues that these proceedings are, in fact, about their refusal to reassess the 11 June determination at some later date.

17 February 2022 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales) | Topic(s): Children-at-risk - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: South Sudan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Urteil (des Bundesgerichts) 2C_587/2021 vom 16. Februar 2022

16 February 2022 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Federal Court | Topic(s): Exclusion clauses - Palestinian - Statelessness - Statelessness Determination Procedures - UNRWA | Countries: Switzerland - Syrian Arab Republic

K.S. and M.S. v. Switzerland

10 February 2022 | Judicial Body: UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) | Legal Instrument: 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) | Topic(s): Children's rights - Effective remedy - Exhaustion of domestic remedies - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Right to health | Countries: Russian Federation - Switzerland

OVG Lüneburg 4. Senat, Beschluss vom 09.02.2022, 4 LA 74/20,

9 February 2022 | Judicial Body: Germany: Oberverwaltungsgericht | Topic(s): Gender-based persecution - Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription - Social group persecution - Women-at-risk | Countries: Eritrea - Germany

CASE OF KOMISSAROV v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC (Application no. 20611/17)

3 February 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Extradition - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Czech Republic - Russian Federation

OA (Somalia) Somalia CG [2022] UKUT 00033 (IAC)

1. In an Article 3 "living conditions" case, there must be a causal link between the Secretary of State's removal decision and any "intense suffering" feared by the returnee. This includes a requirement for temporal proximity between the removal decision and any "intense suffering" of which the returnee claims to be at real risk. This reflects the requirement in Paposhvili [2017] Imm AR 867 for intense suffering to be "serious, rapid and irreversible" in order to engage the returning State's obligations under Article 3 ECHR. A returnee fearing "intense suffering" on account of their prospective living conditions at some unknown point in the future is unlikely to be able to attribute responsibility for those living conditions to the Secretary of State, for to do so would be speculative.

2 February 2022 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Country of origin information (COI) | Countries: Somalia - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Search Refworld