Case Law
- Albania 1
- Austria 1
- Belgium 1
- Denmark 1
- Georgia 1
- Germany 2
- Greece 1
- Iran, Islamic Republic of 1
- Ireland 1
- Lithuania 1
- Netherlands 4
- Sweden 1
- Syrian Arab Republic 2
- Ukraine 1
- Burden-sharing and international co-operation 1
- Credibility assessment 1
- Decision on admissibility 2
- Deportation / Forcible return 1
- Effective remedy 1
- Exhaustion of domestic remedies 1
- Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment 1
- Housing, land and property rights (HLP) 1
- Immigration Detention 3
- International protection 1
- Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) 1
- Persecution on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity 1
- Proof of nationality 1
- Readmission 1
- Reception 3
- Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures 5
- Regional instruments 1
- Right to family life 1
- Right to liberty and security 2
- Safe country of origin 1
- Safe third country 1
- State of emergency 1
|
SI, TL, ND, VH, YT, HN v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, REQUEST for a preliminary ruling, Case C‑497/21
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 and Article 2 of Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark annexed to the EU Treaty and to the FEU Treaty, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State other than the Kingdom of Denmark which provides for the possibility of rejecting as inadmissible, in whole or in part, an application for international protection within the meaning of Article 2(b) of that directive, which has been made to that Member State by a national of a third country or a stateless person whose previous application for international protection, made to the Kingdom of Denmark, has been rejected by the latter Member State. 22 September 2022 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Decision on admissibility - International protection - Safe third country | Countries: Denmark - Georgia - Germany |
|
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 | 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 |
|
VGH BW, Urteil vom 27.01.2022 – A 4 S 2443/21 –, Juris
27 January 2022 | Judicial Body: Germany: Verwaltungsgericht | 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 |
|
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 | 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 |
|
Ivan Seredych (Applicant/Respondent) - And -
The Minister for Justice And Equality (Respondent/Appellant)
13 October 2020 | Judicial Body: Ireland: Supreme Court | Legal Instrument: 2013 Recast Asylum Procedures Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Readmission - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Ireland - Ukraine |
|
Rechtbank Den Haag, 24-01-2018 / AWB - 17 _ 13382
articles 5 and 7(1)(h) 2005 Regulation on benefits for asylum seekers and other categories of foreigners contrary to EU law 12 March 2018 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: The Hague District Court | Legal Instrument: 2013 Recast Asylum Procedures Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Exhaustion of domestic remedies - Reception | Countries: Netherlands |
|
K. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
14 September 2017 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | 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 |
|
Mohammad Khir Amayry v Migrationsverket (Sweden)
13 September 2017 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Burden-sharing and international co-operation - Deportation / Forcible return - Immigration Detention - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Sweden |
|
Applicant v. State Secretary for Security and Justice
The Council of State handed down four judgments on 15 November 2016 regarding the intensity of judicial review with regards to the credibility assessment done by the administration. 15 November 2016 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: Council of State (Raad van State) | Legal Instrument: 2013 Recast Asylum Procedures Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Credibility assessment - Effective remedy | Countries: Netherlands |
|
Applicant v. State Secretary for Security and Justice
14 September 2016 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: Council of State (Raad van State) | Legal Instrument: 2013 Recast Asylum Procedures Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) - Persecution on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity - Regional instruments - Safe country of origin | Countries: Albania - Netherlands |
