News

On 28 July 2026, the District Court of the Hague delivered its judgments ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2026:21085 and ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2026:21092 following the CJEU’s preliminary rulings in Quotal and Ebilum, respectively, concerning the scope of judicial review in asylum appeals under article 46 (3) of  Directive 2013/32/EU. The CJEU had held that first-instance courts may carry out their own full and ex nunc assessment of the facts and law and, where they have all the necessary elements, determine whether the applicant meets the conditions for international protection.

Applying those rulings, in the judgment following Quotal, the District Court carried out its own assessment of the applicant’s asylum claim. The case concerned a Pakistani national who had previously suffered serious harm and claimed to face a risk of persecution linked to his attributed apostasy from Islam. The Court considered his asylum account credible in its entirety and found that the risk of serious harm on account of his attributed apostasy amounted to a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of religion. It therefore concluded that the applicant qualified for refugee status.

Likewise, in the judgment following the CJEU’s ruling in Ebilum, the District Court carried out its own assessment of the asylum claims of an Iraqi family and it recognised the credibility of the applicants’ daughters’ identification with the fundamental value of equality between women and men. It further clarified that a “reasonable degree of probability” of persecution requires the risk to go beyond a mere possibility, while not requiring certainty. In light of country information concerning gender-based and honour-related violence in Iraq, the Court concluded that the daughters had a well-founded fear of persecution and qualified for refugee status. Their parents and siblings were granted a derived right of residence under Article 23 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347.

In both judgments, the District Court decided the cases itself and instructed the Minister to issue the corresponding residence documents.

On 16 June 2026, the Administrative Court of Gelsenkirchen delivered its judgment in case no. 19a K 5383/23.A, concerning the application of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347 (the ''Qualification Regulation'') to pending asylum procedures.
 

The case concerned a mother and daughter from Iran whose asylum applications had been rejected in November 2023. The daughter had entered Germany in 2022 at the age of 14 and reached the age of majority during the proceedings. The case was still pending when the Qualification Regulation became applicable on 12 June 2026.

The Court held that the Regulation applies not only to asylum applications lodged from 12 June 2026, but also to asylum procedures that remained pending on that date. It found that Section 87e (2) of the German Asylum Act, which restricted its application to applications lodged from 12 June 2026, was therefore incompatible with EU law and had to be disapplied pursuant to the primacy of EU law. It further held that the temporal limitation provided in Article 79(3) of the Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 (the ''Asylum Procedure Regulation'') applies only to that Regulation and cannot be extended to the substantive provisions of the Qualification  Regulation.

Applying the Qualification Regulation, the Court granted the daughter refugee status. It found that feminist Iranian women may constitute a particular social group and, based on the daughter’s individual circumstances, considered that her commitment to gender equality and a self-determined life formed an integral part of her identity. The Court concluded that she faced a risk of gender-specific persecution in Iran on account of her membership of that group and could not be required to exercise restraint to avoid such persecution.

The Court further held that the mother fulfilled the requirements for family status under Section 26(2) of the Asylum Act and Article 23 of the Qualification Regulation. Although the daughter had reached adulthood during the proceedings, the Court held that the relevant point in time for determining her minority was when the mother lodged her application. It considered that determining minority at a later stage, when the competent authorities decide on the derived status, would be incompatible with the protection of private and family life and the rights of the child under Articles 7 and 24(2) and (3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

On 15 May 2026, the Administrative Court of Hanover (Verwaltungsgericht Hannover) delivered its judgment in case 3 A 739/24, concerning the recognition of refugee status based on ‘’Westernised’’ identity and gender-based persecution in Iraq.

The first applicant, an Iraqi national, left Iraq in 2022 and applied for asylum in Germany in 2023 together with her two minor children. The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees rejected the application, finding that the requirements for international protection were not met. The applicant claimed that she had adopted “Western” values during her time abroad, had distanced herself from the Yazidi faith and converted to Christianity, and that, as a result, she and her children would face a risk of persecution on grounds of gender and religion if returned to Iraq.

The Court held that Iraqi women whose identity is shaped by “Western’’ values may constitute a social group within the meaning of asylum law where their identity is characterised by a self-determined lifestyle and a commitment to gender equality that is incompatible with prevailing Iraqi patriarchal norms. It found that such women are perceived as distinct in Iraqi society and may face a considerable risk of persecution, including serious forms of gender-based violence in a context where effective state protection is not available. It further held that the assessment of “Westernisation” depends on whether this identity is so deeply rooted that the person cannot reasonably be expected to abandon it or adapt their conduct upon return.

The Court considered that the applicant’s account of her personal development was credible and found that her “Westernised” identity had become an essential part of her personality, which she could not reasonably be required to renounce. It held that reliance on family protection could not be required where this would entail subordination to male authority or the abandonment of her autonomous way of life. Internal protection alternative is not a viable as the risks for women with such an identity exist throughout Iraq and effective state protection is lacking.

The Court therefore annulled the contested decisions of the Federal Office and ordered the defendant to grant refugee status to the applicant as well as to her children.

Unofficial translation by the EWLU team

On 24 March 2026, the Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht) delivered its decision in case BVerwG 1 C 6.25. The case concerned whether Germany was required to grant a residence permit to a person who had previously been recognised as a refugee by another EU Member State following a transfer of responsibility.

The applicant, an Ethiopian national recognised as a refugee in Italy, entered Germany in 2019 and applied for asylum. The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees rejected the application as inadmissible and ordered her return to Italy. Since the applicant could not be returned to Italy, the domestic courts ordered the defendant State to issue a new refugee travel document and to grant her a residence permit.

The question before the Federal Administrative Court was whether Germany was also obliged to grant a residence permit under national law in light of the prior recognition of refugee status in Italy. The Court upheld the Government’s appeal against the decision of the Bavarian Administrative Court of Appeal ordering the authorities to grant a residence permit and considered that neither national law nor international and EU law imposes an obligation on Germany to grant a residence permit in such circumstances. It found that the conditions for issuing a residence permit under § 25(2) sentence 1 alternative 1 of the Residence Act were not met, as refugee status had been granted by Italy and not by German authorities.

It considered that the legal framework of the Geneva Refugee Convention and Directive 2011/95/EU does not require a Member State to grant a residence permit to a person recognised as a refugee by another Member State, as responsibility for residence rights remains with the recognising State.

Unofficial translation by the EWLU team

On 21 April 2026, the Council of State ruled on the lawfulness of the prohibition of access to classified information in the case of a Syrian national who was granted refugee status in 2017 and was later subject to a revocation procedure based on classified information indicating that the applicant posed danger to the national security of the country.

In the context of the revocation procedure that was initiated, the applicant submitted a request to access the relevant document on the basis of Article 23 (1) of the Asylum Procedures Directive (APD) and Article 76 (4) of Law 4939/2022. The request was rejected due to the confidential nature of the information the document contained. Eventually, the relevant department of the Asylum Authority issued a decision revoking the person’s refugee status. Following an appeal against the revocation decision, the Appeals Committee was able to examine the classified document and confirmed the existence of revocation grounds rejecting the appeal. The applicant sought to annul that second decision before the Athens Administrative Court and the annulment application was referred to the Council of State as it concerned a matter of general interest that affects many individuals. 

The Council of State examined the relevant provisions of EU primary law, including Articles 78, 72 and 73 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, in particular Articles 18, 19, and 47. It emphasised the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the EU which has found that the right of defence is not absolute but any limitations to it may not nullify the very essence of Article 47. Referring to Case C-159/21, the Council of State held that, although Member States may withhold classified information where disclosure would endanger national security, they must nevertheless ensure respect for the rights of defence. At a minimum, the person concerned must be informed of the substance of the reasons underlying the decision so that they can effectively challenge it. Therefore, the provision of Article 76 (4) of Law 4939/2022, which allows the relevant authority to prohibit access to classified information where national security grounds exist, cannot be interpreted as precluding access to the essence of the grounds that justified the revocation decision.

The Council of State also held that refugee status may be withdrawn on national security grounds and accompanied by a return decision, but the two assessments remain legally distinct. Even after the withdrawal of status, the person may still qualify as a refugee under international and EU law and therefore continue to benefit from the principle of non-refoulement under Article 18 and 19 CFREU and Article 5 of the Return Directive. Accordingly, the national authorities must ensure at every stage of the return process that the individual is not returned to a country where they face a real risk of persecution, torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment, on the basis of an individualised and up-to-date assessment.

On 12 May 2026, the National Court of Asylum (CNDA) delivered its decision N°26006334 concerning the protection status to be granted to a Sudanese national of Fur ethnic origin from North Darfur, in light of the situation of persecution affecting that ethnic group.

The applicant challenged the decision of the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) which granted him subsidiary protection, arguing that he should be recognised as a refugee under the 1951 Geneva Convention. The CNDA was required to assess whether the situation in North Darfur amounted to persecution of the Fur ethnic group and whether this justified refugee status rather than subsidiary protection.

The Court found that the Fur ethnic group is subject to systematic and targeted persecution in North Darfur by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and allied forces, who control the region without effective protection from the Sudanese authorities. Relying on the EUAA Guidance Note on Sudan (23 June 2025) and the UN Fact-Finding Mission report of 19 February 2026, the Court highlighted serious ethnically motivated abuses, including massacres, summary executions, torture, forced displacement, and destruction of communities, with acts described as having “hallmarks of genocide”.

The CNDA held that the existence of indiscriminate violence in North Darfur does not exclude the recognition of targeted persecution where a specific ethnic group is individually and systematically affected. It therefore found that the applicant had a well-founded fear of being persecuted on grounds of ethnicity within the meaning of the 1951 Geneva Convention and recognised refugee status accordingly.

On 8 April 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) communicated the application of K.P. v. Cyprus (Application no. 30430/25). The case concerns the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention pending deportation and the risk of ill-treatment if returned to Iran.

The applicant, an Iranian national recognised as refugee in Cyprus, was arrested in November 2023 on suspicion of involvement in terrorist activities. He was subsequently classified as a ‘’prohibited migrant’’ and placed in detention pending his deportation to Iran. The applicant challenged the detention and deportation decisions before the Administrative Court, which held that it lacked jurisdiction to examine the deportation decision and dismissed the recourse, finding the detention lawful, necessary and proportionate. The applicant subsequently lodged three habeas corpus applications before the Supreme Court, all of which were unsuccessful. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the risk of ill-treatment upon return to Iran as well as the conditions of his detention, under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the lack of an effective remedy to challenge his expulsion, and under Articles 5 §§ 1 and 4 ECHR regarding the lawfulness of his detention and access to legal aid.

On 18 March 2026, the Migration Court of Appeal (Migrationsöverdomstolen) annulled the decisions of the Malmö Administrative Court and the Swedish Migration Agency which had rejected a refugee’s application for long-term resident status on the grounds that he had not proven his identity.

The applicant, already granted refugee status, a permanent residence permit, and a Swedish travel document, had applied for long-term resident status in June 2023. The Swedish Migration Agency and the Administrative Court in Malmö had both found that he had not submitted sufficient documentation to prove his identity. The applicant challenged this requirement, noting that, as a refugee, he could not return to his home country to obtain identity documents.

The Migration Court of Appeal held that Swedish law and the EU Long-Term Residents Directive 2003/109/EC do not impose a requirement of proven identity for refugees who already hold a permanent residence permit and a travel document. It clarified that Member States may grant long-term residence permits on more favourable terms than those provided for in the Directive. However, such permits do not confer a right of residence in other Member States. Therefore, the Court annulled the previous decisions and referred the case back to the Migration Agency for further consideration.

Unofficial translation by the EWLU team. We would like to thank Michael Williams for bringing this case to our attention.

On 27 February 2026, the Court of First Instance of Antwerp, Family Court Section (Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Antwerpen, familierechtbank) annulled a decision of the civil registrar of the City of Antwerp revoking the Belgian nationality of a child born in Belgium of Palestinian parents recognised as refugees.

The child had initially been granted Belgian nationality pursuant to Article 10§1 of the Belgian Nationality Code to prevent statelessness. On 5 March 2024, the registrar of Antwerp revoked the child’s nationality on the grounds that the child could acquire Palestinian nationality through the parents or via the Palestinian mission. As a result, the child’s Belgian passport and Kids-ID were annulled. The parents contested the revocation, maintaining that as recognised refugees it was not feasible for them to secure Palestinian nationality for their child. The City of Antwerp and the Public Prosecutor’s Office argued that the claim should be dismissed, citing a potential “pull effect” and alleged abuse of the nationality rules.

The Court of First Instance annulled the revocation holding that under Article 10§3 of the Belgian Nationality Code (WBN) nationality may only be withdrawn if it is established beyond doubt that the child possesses another nationality. Hence, given the absence of formal Palestinian nationality legislation and the impossibility for refugees to register remotely, the child could not realistically acquire another nationality. The court further held that any alleged abuse of Belgian nationality rules by the parents could not justify the deprivation of the child’s nationality, highlighting that the best interests of the child (Article 22bis of the Constitution) must prevail.

According to the Court’s press release, five similar decisions from the city register were annulled by the Court on the same grounds.

Unofficial translation by the EWLU team