Last Updated: Wednesday, 17 May 2023, 15:20 GMT
Refworld Home
Latest Refworld Updates for Syrian Arab Republic RSS feed

Syrian Arab Republic - flag Syrian Arab Republic

UNHCR is not responsible for the content and availability of non-UNHCR websites. Content displays in a new window.

Filter:
Showing 31-40 of 8,436 results
Opinion of Advocate General Tanchev delivered on 1 October 2020 in Case C-507/19

1 October 2020 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Article 1D - Palestinian - UNRWA | Countries: Germany - Lebanon - Palestine, State of - Syrian Arab Republic

Statement on the Interpretation and Application of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention and Article 12(1)(a) of the EU Qualification Directive Issued in the context of the preliminary ruling reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 3 July 2019 – Federal Republic of Germany v XT (C-507/19)

18 August 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae

Background Note on Gender Equality, Nationality Laws and Statelessness 2020

14 July 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports

Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in Case C‑238/19 EZ v Federal Republic of Germany, represented by the Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover (Administrative Court, Hanover, Germany))

Article 9(3) 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 is to be interpreted as meaning that there must always be a causal link between the reasons for persecution in Article 10(1) and the acts of persecution defined in Article 9(1), including in cases where an applicant for international protection seeks to rely on Article 9(2)(e) of that directive. – Where an applicant for asylum seeks to invoke Article 9(2)(e) of Directive 2011/95 as the act of persecution, reliance upon that provision does not automatically establish that the person concerned has a well-founded fear of persecution because he holds a political opinion within the meaning of Article 10(1)(e) thereof. It is for the competent national authorities, acting under the supervision of the courts, to establish whether there is a causal link for the purposes of that directive. In conducting that assessment the following factors may be relevant: whether the applicant’s home country is conducting a war; the nature and methods employed by the military authorities in such a war; the availability of country reports documenting matters such as whether recruitment for military service is by conscription; whether the status of conscientious objector is recognised under national law and, if so, the procedures for establishing such status; the treatment of those subject to conscription who refuse to perform military service; the existence or absence of alternatives to military service; and the applicant’s personal circumstances, including his age.

28 May 2020 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 2004 Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): EU Qualification Directive - Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription - Persecution based on political opinion | Countries: Germany - Syrian Arab Republic

COI Note: Participation in Anti-Government Protests; Draft Evasion; Issuance and Application of Partial Amnesty Decrees; Residency in (Formerly) Opposition-Held Areas; Issuance of Passports Abroad; Return and "Settling One's Status"

7 May 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country Reports

M.N. and Others against Belgium (Application no. 3599/18) Grand Chamber Decision

The Court reiterated that Article 1 (obligation to respect human rights) of the European Convention limited its scope to persons within the jurisdiction of the States Parties to the Convention. In the present case, it noted that the applicants were not within Belgium’s jurisdiction in respect of the circumstances complained of under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. The Court also considered that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was inapplicable in the present case. The entry to Belgian territory which would have resulted from the visas being issued did not engage a “civil” right within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. Lastly, the Court noted that this conclusion did not prejudice the endeavours being made by the States Parties to facilitate access to asylum procedures through their embassies and/or consular representations.

5 May 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Decision on admissibility - Effective remedy - Jurisdiction - Visas | Countries: Belgium - Lebanon - Syrian Arab Republic

CASE OF Z.A. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 61411/15, 61420/15, 61427/15 and 3028/16) (Grand Chamber)

The Court found in particular that Article 5 was applicable to the applicants’ case as their presence in the transit zone had not been voluntary; they had been left to their own devices for the entire period of their stay, which had lasted between five and 19 months depending on the applicant; there had been no realistic prospect of them being able to leave the zone; and the authorities had not adhered to the domestic legislation on the reception of asylum-seekers. Given the absence of a legal basis for their being confined to the transit zone, a situation made worse by them being impeded in accessing the asylum system, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of the applicants’ rights protected by Article 5 § 1. The conditions the applicants had lived in had also been appalling: they had had to sleep in the transit zone, a busy and constantly lit area, with no access to washing or cooking facilities. There had thus also been a breach of Article 3 as their treatment had been degrading.

21 November 2019 | 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): Airports - Arbitrary arrest and detention - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions - Right to liberty and security - Transit | Countries: Iraq - Palestine, State of - Russian Federation - Somalia - Syrian Arab Republic

Bundesrepublik Deutschland gegen Adel Hamed (C‑540/17), Amar Omar (C‑541/17) (Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung)

13 November 2019 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Decision on admissibility - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Germany - Syrian Arab Republic

Letter to UNHCR explaining UNRWA's Role and Responsibilities vis-à-vis Palestinian Refugees in Syria

6 November 2019 | Publisher: UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) | Document type: Legal Articles/Analyses/Commentaries

AFFAIRE O.D. c. BULGARIE (Requête no 34016/18)

The Court held that "- that O.D.’s removal to Syria would amount to a violation of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights - that there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), read in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3. The Court found, in particular, that in view of the overall situation in Syria and the individual risk faced by the applicant it could not be established that he could safely return to Syria. The Court also found that the applicant had not had access to an effective remedy, noting that his request for a stay of execution of the expulsion order had been rejected on the grounds that he posed a threat to national security, and that the proceedings relating to the application for refugee status or humanitarian status had not been aimed at reviewing the lawfulness of the expulsion order or its effects in relation to the complaints concerning the right to life and the right not to be subjected to ill-treatment. ..."

10 October 2019 | 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): Effective remedy - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Right to life | Countries: Bulgaria - Syrian Arab Republic

Search Refworld

Advanced Search | Search Tips
UNHCR logo