News

On 1 October 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment in Case C-249/25 (Jilin), following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Netherlands Council of State (Raad van State). The case concerned the interpretation of Article 17(2) of Directive 2001/55/EC (the Temporary Protection Directive (TPD)) and Article 31 of Directive 2013/32/EU (the recast Asylum Procedures Directive (rAPD)), and whether Member States may automatically suspend the examination of applications for international protection lodged by beneficiaries of temporary protection until that protection expires.

The Court clarified that Article 17(2) TPD provides that the examination of any asylum application not processed before the end of the period of temporary protection shall be completed after the end of that period. However, that provision does not confer on Member States the power to automatically suspend the examination of applications for international protection during the period of temporary protection.

It further held that beneficiaries of temporary protection are not excluded from the scope of Directive 2011/95/EU (the recast Qualification Directive) and Directive 2013/32/EU (rAPD).  The general rules for examining applications for international protection, including the time limits under Article 31 rAPD apply, in principle, regardless of whether the applicant enjoys temporary protection. Furthermore, Article 31 rAPD already allows Member States, under certain circumstances, to extend the time limit for examining applications where their international protection systems face increased pressure. Therefore, the EU legislature already took account of the administrative difficulties arising from a large number of applications lodged simultaneously.

The Court further rejected the argument that a generalised and automatic suspension is necessary to achieve the TPD’s objectives. Temporary protection provides immediate, more limited protection while preserving access to international protection following an individual examination. Its implementation does not necessarily mean that national asylum systems face more applications than they can handle, while automatic suspension could leave authorities having to examine numerous applications simultaneously when temporary protection ends.

Finally, it accepted that exceptionally, the lodging of a considerable number of applications over a short period may make it objectively impossible for the Member States to comply with the time limits of Article 31 rAPD. In such circumstances, authorities may temporarily defer the examination of some applications, even if the applicable time limits cannot always be met. It is for the national courts to verify that any failure to meet the time limits does not result from a generalised and automatic suspension, but only from measures necessary to deal with such an impossibility while avoiding the congestion of the national international protection system.

On 7 September 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) communicated the case M.A. v. Poland (Application no. 7829/23), concerning the expulsion of a lawfully resident on national security grounds and the procedural safeguards available to him.

The applicant, a stateless of Palestinian origin, had legally resided in Poland since 2016 with his Polish wife and their child, who has disabilities. In 2020, his details were entered in the Register of Undesirable Foreigners without his knowledge and he was denied access to the information underlying that decision. In separate proceedings, he was ordered in 2021 to return to the Palestinian Authority and prohibited from entering Poland and other Schengen States for five years. He challenged both decisions unsuccessfully and left for Belgium in 2023, where he obtained international protection in 2026.

The applicant complains that he could not effectively challenge the undisclosed national security grounds for his inclusion in the Register, that his family life was affected and that the risks associated with his return were inadequately assessed. He also alleges a lack of effective remedies. The Court asked the parties, inter alia, whether the Register proceedings complied with Article 1 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 and whether the authorities had adequately and rigorously assessed the risk of ill-treatment upon return under Article 3 ECHR.
 

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

On 30 December 2025, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania published its judgment on the case No eA-820-552/2025 ,  ruling that the denial of the right to seek for international protection violates international and EU Law.

On 23 October 2023, the applicant was forcibly returned to the Belarus border by the Lithuanian authorities, denying him the right to seek asylum. The applicant was provided with water, food, warm clothes, footwear, and hygiene products, but he was not allowed to enter the territory of the Republic of Lithuania.

The Supreme Administrative Court held that ambiguities regarding the request for asylum must be interpreted in favour of the applicant and shifted the burden of proof to the authorities. Furthermore, having regard to the jurisprudence of the CJEU, the Supreme Court held that the officials acted unlawfully by forcibly removing the applicant from Lithuanian territory and denying him an opportunity to apply for international protection. The Court also recognised that there was a causal link between the suffering of the applicant and the actions of the Lithuanian authorities and found Lithuanian authorities responsible for this. However, it considered that there is no evidence that the violation of the applicant’s rights resulted in non-pecuniary damage within the meaning of Article 3 ECHR, leaving the question of the compensation to be decided. Finally, the Court held that national border regulations, including measures designed to prevent ‘instrumentalisation’, cannot legitimize state conduct that breach international obligations. It reaffirmed that duties under both international and EU law prevail over national law.

Unofficial translation by the EWLU team.