Last Updated: Wednesday, 17 May 2023, 15:20 GMT
Refworld Home

Adjudication of asylum claims (refugee status determination / asylum procedures) / Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures

Filter:
Showing 11-20 of 1,050 results
Effective processing of asylum applications: Practical considerations and practices

March 2022 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Policy/Position Papers

VG Hannover 12. Kammer, Beschluss vom 23.02.2022, 12 B 6475/21

Decision in German available here: http://www.rechtsprechung.niedersachsen.juris.de/jportal/?quelle=jlink&docid=MWRE220005233&psml=bsndprod.psml&max=true

23 February 2022 | Judicial Body: Germany: Verwaltungsgericht | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Suspensive effect | Countries: Germany - Lithuania

CASE OF KOMISSAROV v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC (Application no. 20611/17)

3 February 2022 | 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): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Extradition - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Czech Republic - Russian Federation

Decision 202101105/1/V1

3 January 2022 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: Council of State (Raad van State) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Article 1D - Palestinian - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Statelessness - UNRWA | Countries: Iraq - Netherlands

Handbook for Interpreters in Asylum Procedures

2022 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Handbooks/Manuals

Opinion by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for the Petition of 21-Jinjeong-0274200 submitted to the National Human Rights Commission of Korea

December 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae

Case of M.J. v. The Netherlands (Application no. 49259/18)

In view of the above, the Court notes that the risk of the applicant being expelled and, potentially, being exposed to a risk of treatment in breach of Article 3, has now, at least temporarily, been removed. Moreover, the Court finds that the complaints under Article 13 and on the procedural requirements of Article 3 in the present case are in essence inextricably connected to the proposed expulsion of the applicant (see Nasseri v the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24239/09, § 18, 13 October 2015, and J.W. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 16177/14, § 32, 27 June 2017). In these circumstances, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)). Moreover, it is satisfied that respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto, does not require a continuation of the application by virtue of Article 37 § 1 in fine. Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the list.

21 October 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Human rights law - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Afghanistan - Netherlands

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 | Document type: Case Law | 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

XY v Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl Case C-18/20

preliminary ruling on interpretation of article 40 Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection

9 September 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Austria - Iraq

UNHCR Recommendations concerning the Upcoming Amendment of the Bylaw on Asylum of Bosnia and Herzegovina

September 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation

Search Refworld

Advanced Search | Search Tips
UNHCR logo