News

On 2 July 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) communicated the case Akkaoui v. Denmark (Application no. 21546/26) concerning the residence and reporting obligations imposed on the applicant at a return centre following an expulsion order that could not be implemented, and their alleged incompatibility with Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The applicant, a stateless Palestinian from Lebanon, entered Denmark with his parents in 1986 at the age of eight. He was ordered to be expelled with a permanent re-entry ban in 2014, but the Danish authorities were unable to implement the expulsion order as it had not been possible to deport him to Lebanon. In 2018, the Aliens Board ordered him to reside at the return centre (Kærshovedgård) during the night and to report to the police at the centre three times per week. Following further criminal convictions and expulsion orders, the applicant was convicted in April 2025 for failing to comply with the residence and reporting obligations between 2020 and 2024 and was sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment. The conviction was upheld by the High Court, and permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused in January 2026.

The Court asked the parties whether the applicant had exhausted domestic remedies in respect of his complaint and if the High Court’s judgment was in breach of Articles 3, 5 and 8 ECHR.
 

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 19 March 2026, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Dutch Council of State (Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State) delivered its judgments nos. 202600650/2/V6 and 202600651/2/V6 on applications for interim relief submitted by two students residing in Gaza. The cases concerned the requests for consular assistance from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to allow the students to leave Gaza and collect their provisional residence permits (mvv) at the Dutch embassy in Jordan in order to commence their studies in the Netherlands.

Both students had already been admitted to a Dutch university, and the Minister of Asylum and Migration had no objection to issuing them a residence permit. However, the students could not cross the border in Gaza and requested the Minister’s assistance. The Minister rejected their requests because they did not belong to a group normally eligible for such assistance and declared the applicants’ objections inadmissible, a decision upheld by the District Court of The Hague. The students appealed against this decision and sought interim relief from the Council of State.

The Council of State stressed that the judgments were limited to interim relief excluding the main legal questions. It confirmed that there is no legal right to consular assistance under Dutch law and that the Minister enjoys broad discretion in this domain. Nevertheless, the interim relief judge of the Council of State found that the applicants’ inability to leave Gaza and collect their mvvs is due to the harrowing situation in Gaza. The risk that, due to the duration of the proceedings, they might no longer be able to collect those permits, outweighed the Minister’s interests. The judge further observed that the measure sought involved only limited efforts through diplomatic channels, and not an obligation to ensure evacuation or issue residence documents. The Minister’s concerns regarding identity verification were insufficiently substantiated. In light of these very special circumstances, it ordered the Minister to make every effort to facilitate the applicants’ departure from Gaza, without prejudging the outcome of the main proceedings.

Unofficial translation by the EWLU team
 

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 20 November 2025, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published its judgment on the case 2C_64/2025, and ruled that requiring Eritrean nationals to sign a ‘declaration of repentance’ at the Eritrean consulate in order to obtain a residence permit on the grounds of hardship (conversion from an F permit to a B permit) is unlawful.

The Federal Supreme Court found that, although de presentation of an identity document is in principle required, this obligation does not apply where such procurement is unreasonable. The Court further observed that the issuance of an Eritrean passport is conditional upon signing a ‘declaration of repentance’, which entails admitting to unlawful conduct. It held that such requirement amounts to a form of self-incrimination and is incompatible with fundamental principles of Swiss and international law.
It therefore found that the authorities could not lawfully refuse the residence permit solely on the ground of the absence of a passport. Since the applicant’s identity was not in doubt and he met the other statutory requirements, making the grant of the permit conditional on the production of such a document was found by the Court disproportionate to the legitimate aim of identity verification.

Unofficial translation by the EWLU team