European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union

On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules: 1. Article 40(2) 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 4(2) 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, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which any document submitted by an applicant for international protection in support of a subsequent application is automatically considered not to constitute a ‘new element or finding’, within the meaning of that provision, when the authenticity of that document cannot be established or its source objectively verified. 2. Article 40 of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 2011/95, must be interpreted as meaning, first, that the assessment of the evidence submitted in support of an application for international protection cannot vary according to whether the application is a first application or a subsequent application and, second, that a Member State is required to cooperate with an applicant for the purpose of assessing the relevant elements of his or her subsequent application, when that applicant submits, in support of that application, documents the authenticity of which cannot be established.

10 June 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Credibility assessment - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Afghanistan - Netherlands

The maintenance by a determining authority of a Member State of a practice whereby original documents can never constitute new elements or findings for the purposes of a subsequent asylum application if the authenticity of those documents cannot be established is incompatible with Article 40(2) 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 4(2) 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. There is no difference between copies of documents or documents originating from a non-objectively verifiable source submitted by an applicant in a subsequent application in so far as all documents have to be considered carefully and rigorously on an individual basis in order to ascertain whether they significantly add to the likelihood that the applicant qualifies as a beneficiary of international protection and in order to prevent a person from being expelled if he or she faces an individual and real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 2. Article 40 of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 4(2) of Directive 2011/95, cannot be interpreted as permitting a determining authority of a Member State, when assessing documents and assigning probative value to such documents, to distinguish between documents submitted in an initial application and those submitted in a subsequent application. A Member State, when assessing documents in a subsequent application, is obliged to cooperate with the applicant to the same extent as in the initial procedure.

11 February 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Fresh / New claim - Refugee / Asylum law | Countries: Afghanistan - Netherlands

1. Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in conjunction with Article 5(a) of that directive and Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, before issuing a return decision against an unaccompanied minor, the Member State concerned must carry out a general and in-depth assessment of the situation of that minor, taking due account of the best interests of the child. In this context, that Member State must ensure that adequate reception facilities are available for the unaccompanied minor in question in the State of return. 2. Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/115, read in conjunction with Article 5(a) of that directive and in the light of Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may not distinguish between unaccompanied minors solely on the basis of the criterion of their age for the purpose of ascertaining whether there are adequate reception facilities in the State of return. 3. Article 8(1) of Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as precluding a Member State, after it has adopted a return decision in respect of an unaccompanied minor and has been satisfied, in accordance with Article 10(2) of that directive, that that minor will be returned to a member of his or her family, a nominated guardian or adequate reception facilities in the State of return, from refraining from subsequently removing that minor until he or she reaches the age of 18 years.

14 January 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2008 Returns Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Children's rights - Deportation / Forcible return - Reception - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Guinea - Netherlands

1. The Court of Justice of the European Union has jurisdiction, on the basis of Article 267 TFEU, to interpret Article 11(2) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where a national court is called upon to rule on an application for family reunification lodged by a beneficiary of subsidiary protection, if that provision was made directly and unconditionally applicable to such a situation under national law. 2. Article 11(2) of Directive 2003/86 must be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in which an application for family reunification has been lodged by a sponsor benefiting from subsidiary protection in favour of a minor of whom she is the aunt and allegedly the guardian, and who resides as a refugee and without family ties in a third country, that application from being rejected solely on the ground that the sponsor has not provided official documentary evidence of the death of the minor’s biological parents and, consequently, that she has an actual family relationship with him, and that the explanation given by the sponsor to justify her inability to provide such evidence has been deemed implausible by the competent authorities solely on the basis of the general information available concerning the situation in the country of origin, without taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the sponsor and the minor and the particular difficulties they have encountered, according to their testimony, before and after fleeing their country of origin.

13 March 2019 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Country of origin information (COI) - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Family reunification | Countries: Eritrea - Netherlands

Propose a la cour par le A.G. : L’article 11, paragraphe 2, de la directive 2003/86/CE du Conseil, du 22 septembre 2003, relative au droit au regroupement familial, doit être interprété en ce sens qu’il ne s’oppose pas à une législation nationale en vertu de laquelle le bénéficiaire d’une protection internationale est tenu, aux fins de l’examen de sa demande de regroupement familial, d’expliquer d’une manière plausible les raisons pour lesquelles il se trouve dans l’incapacité de fournir des pièces justificatives officielles attestant de l’existence d’un lien familial, pour autant que l’autorité nationale compétente apprécie ces explications au regard non seulement des informations pertinentes, tant générales que particulières, concernant la situation dans le pays d’origine de ce dernier, mais également de la situation particulière dans laquelle celui-ci se trouve.

29 November 2018 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Children's rights - Family reunification - Refugee identity documents - Right to family life | Countries: Eritrea - Netherlands

1. The Court of Justice has jurisdiction, on the basis of Article 267 TFEU, to interpret Article 12(1) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where a national court is called upon to rule on a beneficiary of subsidiary protection’s right to family reunification, if that provision was made directly and unconditionally applicable to such a situation under national law. 2. Article 12(1) of Directive 2003/86 does not preclude national legislation which permits an application for family reunification lodged on behalf of a member of a refugee’s family, on the basis of the more favourable provisions for refugees of Chapter V of that directive, to be rejected on the ground that that application was lodged more than three months after the sponsor was granted refugee status, whilst affording the possibility of lodging a fresh application under a different set of rules provided that that legislation: – lays down that such a ground of refusal cannot apply to situations in which particular circumstances render the late submission of the initial application objectively excusable; – lays down that the persons concerned are to be fully informed of the consequences of the decision rejecting their initial application and of the measures which they can take to assert their rights to family reunification effectively; and – ensures that sponsors recognised as refugees continue to benefit from the more favourable conditions for the exercise of the right to family reunification applicable to refugees, specified in Articles 10 and 11 or in Article 12(2) of the directive.

7 November 2018 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Family reunification | Countries: Netherlands

(1) The Court has jurisdiction to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the referring court which relate to the interpretation of the provisions of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification in a case concerning the right of residence of a member of the family of a beneficiary of subsidiary protection status, where the provisions of that directive have been declared directly and unconditionally applicable to the beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status in national law. (2) The system provided for under Directive 2003/86 precludes a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which an application for family reunification on the basis of the more favourable provisions of Chapter V of that directive can be rejected for the sole reason that it was not submitted within the three-month period laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 12(1) of that directive, since that period cannot be regarded as a time bar and that application must be considered in the light of Article 7 and Article 24(2) and (3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which require the Member States to examine applications for family reunification in the interests of the children concerned, with a view to promoting family life and preventing both the objective and the effectiveness of Directive 2003/86 from being undermined. In addition, the failure to have regard to the guiding principles of that directive in the event of the rejection of an application for family reunification for the purposes of Article 12 thereof because the three-month period provided for in the third subparagraph of paragraph 1 of that article is exceeded cannot be justified by the fact that the examination of another application submitted under Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/86 would take account of those guiding principles.

27 June 2018 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Family reunification - Right to family life | Countries: Netherlands

interpretation of the second subparagraph of Article 27(2), Article 28(1) and Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States

2 May 2018 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Exclusion clauses - National security / Public order | Countries: Afghanistan - Belgium - Bosnia and Herzegovina - Croatia - Netherlands