UNHCR Recommendations concerning Asylum-related Cases in the Context of Judicial Reform in the Republic of Armenia
September 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: General Comments/Recommendations |
UNHCR Recommendations concerning Asylum-related Cases in the Context of Judicial Reform in the Republic of Armenia
September 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: General Comments/Recommendations |
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL BOBEK in Case C‑556/17 Alekszij Torubarov v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Administrative and Labour Court, Pécs, Hungary))
I suggest that the Court reply to the Pécsi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Administrative and Labour Court, Pécs, Hungary) as follows: – Article 46(3) 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, in conjunction with the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, is to be interpreted as meaning that a model of judicial review in matters of international protection in which the courts are endowed with a mere cassational power but in which the judicial guidance they issue in their annulment decisions is effectively being disregarded by the administrative bodies when deciding on the same case again, such as demonstrated in the case in the main proceedings, fails to meet the requirements of effective judicial review set out in Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32 and interpreted in the light of the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter. – A national court, deciding in circumstances such as those in the case in the main proceedings, must set aside the national rule limiting its power to the mere annulment of the relevant administrative decision. That obligation arises when the clear assessment contained in a judicial decision annulling a previous administrative decision has been disregarded by the administrative authority deciding the same case anew, without the latter bringing any new elements that it could have reasonably and legitimately brought into consideration, thus depriving the judicial protection provided for under the invoked provisions of any practical effect. 30 April 2019 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Administrative courts - Effective remedy | Countries: Hungary - Russian Federation |
Freedom in the World 2018 - São Tomé and Príncipe
5 October 2018 | Publisher: Freedom House | Document type: Annual Reports |
Moldova court again suspends president's appointment powers
24 September 2018 | Publisher: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty | Document type: Country News |
República Dominicana: Ley N° 13-07, Creo el Tribunal Contencioso Trubutario y Administrativo
17 January 2017 | Publisher: National Legislative Bodies / National Authorities | Document type: National Legislation |
Report on the use of the commitment authority and request for a subvention to the Residual Special Court for Sierra Leone
15 September 2016 | Publisher: UN General Assembly | Document type: Country Reports |
Study on the Reviewing Powers of the Administrative Jurisdictions of the Republic of Armenia in Asylum Cases
December 2015 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Legal Articles/Analyses/Commentaries |
Human rights in the administration of justice, including juvenile justice : resolution / adopted by the Human Rights Council
12 October 2015 | Publisher: UN Human Rights Council | Document type: Resolutions/Recommendations/Declarations |
Administration of justice at the United Nations : report of the Secretary-General
31 July 2015 | Publisher: UN General Assembly | Document type: Thematic Reports |