UNHCR Observations on the Proposal for amendments to the Norwegian
Immigration Act (Deportation of refugees due to imposed punishment)
28 November 2022 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation |
GM v Országos Idegenrendézeti Főigazgatóság,
Alkotmányvédelmi Hivatal, Terrorelhárítási Központ, REQUEST for a preliminary ruling, Case C‑159/21
1. Article 23(1) 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 45(4) of that directive and in the light of the general principle of EU law relating to the right to sound administration and of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as: precluding national legislation which provides that, where a decision rejecting an application for international protection or withdrawing such protection is based on information the disclosure of which would jeopardise the national security of the Member State in question, the person concerned or his or her legal adviser can access that information only after obtaining authorisation to that end, are not provided even with the substance of the grounds on which such decisions are based and cannot, in any event, use, for the purposes of administrative procedures or judicial proceedings, the information to which they may have had access. 2. Article 4(1) and (2), Article 10(2) and (3), Article 11(2) and Article 45(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 14(4)(a) and Article 17(1)(d) of Directive 2011/95/EU 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 the determining authority is systematically required, where bodies entrusted with specialist functions linked to national security have found, by way of a non-reasoned opinion, that a person constituted a danger to that security, to refuse to grant that person subsidiary protection, or to withdraw international protection previously granted to that person, on the basis of that opinion. 3. Article 17(1)(b) of Directive 2011/95 must be interpreted as: not precluding an applicant from being excluded from being eligible for subsidiary protection, pursuant to that provision, on the basis of a criminal conviction of which the competent authorities were already aware when they granted to that applicant, at the end of a previous procedure, refugee status which was subsequently withdrawn. 22 September 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): Asylum-seekers - Exclusion clauses - International protection - National security / Public order - Statelessness | Countries: Hungary |
KM (exclusion; Article 1F(a); Article 1F(b)) Democratic Republic of Congo
1. This decision considers whether the appellant should be excluded from the protection of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (‘the Convention’) because there are serious reasons for considering that he committed crimes against humanity (Article 1F(a)) or in the alternative a serious non-political crime (Article 1F(b)) during his service in the Police d’Intervention Rapide (PIR) in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). 9 March 2022 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): 1951 Refugee Convention - Crimes against humanity - Exclusion clauses - International criminal law - Serious non-political crime | Countries: Congo, Democratic Republic of the - 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 | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Exclusion clauses - Palestinian - Statelessness - Statelessness Determination Procedures - UNRWA | Countries: Switzerland - Syrian Arab Republic |
Arrest nr 260 333
7 September 2021 | Judicial Body: Belgium: Conseil du Contentieux des Etrangers | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Exclusion clauses - Forced marriage - Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription - Serious non-political crime | Countries: Belgium - Syrian Arab Republic |
Urteil (des Bundesgerichts) 2C_330/2020 vom 6. August 2021
6 August 2021 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Federal Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Exclusion clauses - Palestinian - Statelessness - Statelessness Determination Procedures - UNRWA | Countries: Switzerland - Syrian Arab Republic |
Brief of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner in the case of Daniel Girmai Negusie V. Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General
4 August 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae |
Decision 202004766/1/V1
14 July 2021 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: Council of State (Raad van State) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Article 1D - Exclusion clauses - Palestinian - Security situation - Statelessness - UNRWA | Countries: Netherlands - Palestine, State of |
Intervention by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the case of The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness v. Medhanie Aregawi Weldemariam
27 April 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae |
International Protection Considerations with regard to people fleeing the Syrian Arab Republic, Update VI
March 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country/Situation Specific Position Papers |