News

On 26 March 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment in the Case C-202/25 (Tadmur), following a request for a preliminary ruling from the District Court of The Hague, sitting in Roermond (Den Haag, zittingsplaats Roermond). The case concerned the interpretation of the Directive 2008/115/EC (the “Return Directive’’) in conjunction with the Directive 2011/95/EU (the “Qualification Directive’’), on whether a Member State is required to adopt a return decision in respect of a third-country national whose subsidiary protection status has been revoked and where removal is precluded by virtue of the principle of non-refoulement.

The Court held that Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/115 requires Member States, in principle, to issue a return decision once the unlawful stay of a third-country national has been established. However, that obligation must comply with Article 5 of the Return Directive, which requires respect for the principle of non-refoulement, as guaranteed by Article19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In that regard, the Court clarified that Article 5 precludes not only the removal of a third-country national, but also the adoption of a return decision where such decision is contrary to the principle of non-refoulement. That obligation applies at the stage of adopting the return decision and cannot be remedied by merely postponing removal pursuant to Article 9(1)(a) of the Return Directive.

The Court further held that a return decision necessarily entails the designation of a country of destination, within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 2008/115, and that it is therefore legally impossible to adopt such a decision where no destination can be identified in compliance with Article 5 thereof. Consequently, Member States may not circumvent those requirements by adopting under national law a decision obliging the person concerned to leave the territory without designating a country of destination or permitting removal, since such a measure constitutes an ‘obligation to return’ within the meaning of that directive.

The Court also noted that, while the revocation of subsidiary protection under Article 19(3)(a) of Directive 2011/95/EU, read in conjunction with Article 17(1) thereof, results in the loss of the rights attached to international protection, it does not in itself justify removal in breach of the principle of non-refoulement. However, a return decision may be adopted where a lawful alternative country of destination, within the meaning of Article 3(3) of Directive 2008/115, is identified, including a country of transit or another third country to which the person may voluntarily return, provided that such return complies with Article 5 of Return Directive and with the EU Charter.

On 26 March 2026, the First Section of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) published its judgment in the case of D.M. v. Sweden (Application no. 32694/23). The case concerned the removal of an Afghan national of Hazara ethnicity from Sweden to Afghanistan following the rejection of his applications for asylum.

The applicant applied for asylum in Sweden in 2015 relying on several grounds, including risks arising from his conversion to Christianity, his Hazara ethnicity, and his alleged “westernisation” after a prolonged stay in Sweden. His claims were examined in two separate sets of asylum proceedings, which were ultimately rejected by the Swedish authorities. Following the final rejection of his application, the applicant lodged a complaint before the ECtHR under Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) taken alone or in conjunction with Article 13 ECHR. An interim measure was applied to prevent his removal, and the Court considered that the applicant’s complaints should be examined only under Article 3 of the Convention.

In relation to the complaint under Article 3, the Court emphasised that the assessment must be rigorous and focus on the foreseeable consequences of removal, taking into account both the general situation in the country of destination and the applicant’s personal circumstances. The Court found that the domestic authorities’ assessment of the general situation in Afghanistan was insufficiently reasoned and therefore carried out its own ex nunc examination. It observed that, although the security and human rights situation remained serious and fragile, with widespread abuses and strict social control under the Taliban regime, the level of indiscriminate violence did not reach the threshold necessary to breach Article 3 of the Convention. However, it emphasised that this general situation must be taken into account in the assessment of individual risk. As regards the situation of Hazaras, while acknowledging that Hazaras face discrimination, targeted attacks and a lack of effective protection, the Court did not consider that they are systematically exposed to ill-treatment reaching the threshold of Article 3 ECHR. Nevertheless, it held that Hazara ethnicity constitutes a relevant risk-enhancing factor in relation to other risks.

In assessing the applicant’s individual circumstances, the Court found that the domestic authorities had failed to adequately substantiate their conclusions and, in particular, had not carried out a cumulative assessment of all relevant risk factors. It observed that the applicant’s Hazara ethnicity, combined with his area of origin and intended return (Mazar-e Sharif, Balkh province), exposed him to heightened risks. As regards his alleged conversion, the Court considered that a genuine conversion had not been established but recognised the risk extended to individuals perceived as apostates or as having abandoned Islam. Domestic authorities had also underestimated the risks associated with the applicant’s “westernisation’’. In the context of the current repressive regime in Afghanistan, the Court was not convinced that the applicant would be able to conceal these aspects of his identity having to comply with the extensive rules and restrictions governing almost every aspect of daily life, the active monitoring of compliance by the Taliban and members of Afghan communities, and the arbitrary and unpredictable nature of the authorities’ enforcement.

Thus, having regard to the cumulative effect of the applicant’s personal circumstances assessed in the light of the general human rights situation in Afghanistan, the Court concluded that there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would face a real risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR upon return to Afghanistan.

On 30 January 2026, the Second Section of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) communicatedthe application of D.J. v Türkiye (Application no. 37547/22). The case concerns the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s deprivation of liberty and his removal to Uzbekistan.

The applicant, an Uzbek national of Turkmen ethnic origin who identifies as an activist for the independence of Karakalpakstan, was arrested during a demonstration in Istanbul in 2020. Removal orders were issued after that but later annulled due to the lack of a proper risk assessment. He subsequently lodged an application for international protection and, in December 2021, informed the authorities that he had been subjected to harassment, surveillance and death threats, prompting a criminal investigation. In January 2022, he was allegedly apprehended by undercover police officers, held without access to his lawyer or relatives and without being informed of the reasons for his apprehension, before being placed in immigration detention and deported to Uzbekistan on the same day. The Constitutional Court later declared his complaints inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.

The applicant submitted complaints under  Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 7. The Court asked the parties to clarify whether the domestic authorities conducted an adequate assessment of the alleged risk of death or ill-treatment prior to the applicant’s removal, whether he had access to an effective remedy capable of preventing his deportation, and whether his apprehension and deprivation of liberty complied with the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention.

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.

On 3 February 2026, the Third Section of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) published its judgment on the case of O.H. and Others v. Serbia (Application no. 57185/17). The case concerned the removal of Afghan applicants to Bulgaria after they had expressed their intention to seek asylum in Serbia.

On the 3 February 2017, the applicants were arrested and detained at the Gradina Border Police Station on the grounds of illegal border crossing. However, the Pirot Misdemeanour Court discontinued the proceedings recognising the intention of the applicants to seek asylum and issued asylum-intention certificates to them, serving as temporary residence permits. Despite this, the police transported the applicants to the Bulgarian border, confiscated their documents, and forced them to collectively cross the border at night.

In relation to the complaints under Article 4 Protocol 4, the Court recalled the two-tier test established in N.D. and N.T. v. Spain for assessing collective expulsions following unauthorised border crossings. It emphasised, however, that the present case differed. The applicants’ arbitrary removal by the police was entirely unrelated to their initial unauthorised entry into Serbian territory. Moreover, the Constitutional Court already found that the domestic authorities had expelled the applicants without a prior examination of their removal on an individual basis, which had violated the prohibition of collective expulsion in respect of the applicants. The Court therefore agreed with this assessment and found a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4.

Regarding the removal of the applicants from Serbia under Article 3, the Court recalled the principle of non-refoulement inherent in Article 3 ECHR and reiterated that, where an asylum seeker is removed to a third country without an examination of the asylum claim on the merits, the authorities must assess whether the person will have access to an adequate asylum procedure there. As the Serbian authorities expelled the applicants without such assessment, the Court found a violation of the procedural limb of Article 3. It further noted that the manner of their removal, including being taken to the border during freezing conditions, amounted to a violation of the substantive limb of Article 3. By contrast, it found that, although the applicants had been held in inadequate detention conditions, the short duration of their detention did not reach the threshold of severity required under Article 3 and found this complaint manifestly ill-founded.

Concerning the lawfulness of the their detention under Article 5(1) ECHR, the Court noted that the applicants’ initial detention during the misdemeanour proceedings was lawful. However, their continued detention from the end of those proceedings until their expulsion from Serbia had no legal basis, as the applicants should have been taken to an asylum reception facility, but were instead driven to the border and expelled in an arbitrary manner. Hence, the Court found a violation of Article 5(1) of the Convention. Finally, the Court found a violation of Article 5(4) of the Convention, since the police failed to provide them with legal assistance effectively, hence, deprived them of the possibility to challenge the lawfulness of their detention.

The Court also decided not to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Article 13, in conjunction with Articles 3 and Article 4 Protocol 4 of the Convention.