News

On 9 February 2026, the Swiss Federal Administrative Court (FAC) delivered the judgment no. D-4601/2025 clarifying the scope of the principle of subsidiarity in the context of temporary protection for persons from Ukraine. The case concerned the refusal by the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) to grant temporary protection in Switzerland to a Ukrainian national who had previously benefited from temporary protection in Italy.

The applicant had obtained temporary protection in Italy in March 2022, which remained valid until March 2023, and thereafter she returned to Ukraine. In April 2025, she entered Switzerland and applied for temporary protection. The SEM rejected her application and ordered her removal, considering that she could rely on protection previously granted in Italy. The applicant challenged this decision, arguing that her Italian protection status had expired and that Switzerland should have sought assurances of readmission from Italy before refusing protection. The Federal Administrative Court (FAC) dismissed the appeal and confirmed that, under the principle of subsidiarity, temporary protection in Switzerland may be refused where the applicant already has, or can reasonably obtain, a valid protection status in an EU/EFTA Member State. It clarified that no formal readmission agreement or prior assurance from the other State is required in such circumstances.

The Court found that Italy constituted a valid alternative protection country, as it had granted the applicant temporary protection equivalent to the Swiss “S” status and remains obliged under EU law to continue providing such protection to Ukrainian nationals. The expiry of the applicant’s previous Italian status, resulting from her voluntary departure, did not alter this assessment, as she could lawfully return and reobtain protection in Italy. Accordingly, the Court held that the existence of a valid alternative protection status excludes entitlement to Swiss temporary protection, without the need for prior confirmation of readmission, provided that the person concerned can lawfully return to the third State. The judgment was final and not subject to appeal before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.
 

Unofficial translation by the EWLU team

We would like to thank Helen Zemp for bringing this case to our attention

On 16 April 2026, the Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered his opinion in Case C-249/25 (Jilin) following a request for a preliminary reference by the Council of State, Netherlands (Raad van State). The case concerned the interpretation of Article 17(2) of Directive 2001/55/EC (Temporary Protection Directive (TPD)) and Article 31 of Directive 2013/32/EU (recast Asylum Procedures Directive (rAPD)). The questions involved a situation where a third-country national benefiting from temporary protection had also applied for international protection and enquired whether Member States may suspend the examination of such an application for the duration of temporary protection.

The Advocate General considered that EU law does not permit Member States to suspend automatically and indefinitely the examination of applications for international protection solely on the ground that the applicant enjoys temporary protection. Referring to the Court of Justice’s judgment in Framholm, he emphasised that the system of temporary protection is not intended to replace the system of international protection, ensuring that beneficiaries of temporary protection still have a real opportunity to obtain refugee or subsidiary protection status. An automatic suspension of the asylum procedures for the entire duration of temporary protection would be, in practice, equivalent to a refusal to examine the application.

He further noted that the TPD contains no provision allowing for such a suspension and that the preparatory documents of that directive indicate that the possibility of suspending the examination of asylum applications had been deliberately excluded for reasons of compliance with the 1951 Geneva Convention. Although Member States may, in situations involving the simultaneous lodging of a large number of applications, adjust the pace of their examination in order to preserve the functioning of their asylum systems, such flexibility cannot justify a general, automatic and indefinite suspension. He emphasized that a suspension which is not subject to any time limit and is detached from any specific impact which it may have on the operation of the asylum system in each Member State is incompatible with the Temporary Protection Directive.

Finally, the Advocate General highlighted that the rAPD allows for limited extensions of the time limit for examining applications, including in situations involving a large number of applicants, but sets a maximum overall duration of 21 months. It does not allow Member States to suspend procedures indefinitely. In addition, he stressed that such a suspension would be incompatible with Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which guarantees the right to seek asylum. A prolonged delay of several years before the examination of an application would deprive its effectiveness and would not meet the requirements for lawful limitations under Article 52(1) of the Charter.
 

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 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 5 March 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment in the Case C-458/24 (Daraa). The case arose from a request for a preliminary ruling by the Administrative Court of Sigmaringen, Germany (Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen) concerning the interpretation of the Dublin III Regulation and Directive 2013/32 in a situation where the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application unilaterally suspends transfers.

The Court held that the second and third subparagraphs of Article 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation should be interpreted as meaning that a unilateral suspension by the Member State responsible of take-charge or take-back procedures does not require the determining Member State to continue applying the Charter III criteria, nor to assume responsibility itself. Article 3(2) applies only where two cumulative conditions are met: (i) the existence of systemic flaws in the asylum procedure or reception conditions and (ii) a resulting risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. A unilateral suspension does not, in itself, satisfy those conditions and cannot be treated as evidence of such flaws. Consequently, no additional or implicit condition relating to the willingness of the responsible Member State may be inferred from that provision.

As regards Article 29(1) and (2) of the Dublin Regulation, the Court held that the six-month time limit for carrying out a transfer continues to apply irrespective of the reasons preventing the transfer. Under Article 29(2), where the transfer is not carried out within that period, responsibility automatically passes to the requesting Member State. That transfer of responsibility is unconditional and does not depend on the conduct of the Member State initially responsible, including situations where the failure to transfer results from that State’s unilateral suspension of cooperation. The Regulation does not provide for suspension or interruption of that time limit, and extensions are limited to the situations expressly provided for in Article 29(2). The Court further clarified that, during the running of the transfer period, the Member State initially designated as responsible remains bound by its obligations under the Regulation, and Member States must cooperate to carry out the transfer. However, a failure by one Member State to comply with its obligations cannot justify non-compliance by another; remedies lie in infringement proceedings under Articles 258 and 259 TFEU.

Finally, the Court interpreted Article 33(1) and (2) of Directive 2013/32 as precluding a Member State from rejecting an application for international protection as inadmissible on the ground that the Member State responsible is unwilling to take charge or take back the applicant. The grounds for inadmissibility listed in Article 33(2) are exhaustive and must be interpreted strictly, and such a situation is not included among them.

On 10 February 2026, the Fifth Section of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) communicated the application of C.I. v. Cyprus (Application no. 12347/25). The case concerns the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention pending deportation and the risk of death or ill-treatment if returned to Burundi.

The applicant, a Burundian national, lodged an asylum application in Cyprus on the grounds that he would face serious threats to his life and a real risk of ill-treatment upon return to Burundi. His claim was rejected, and he was detained as a “prohibited immigrant” on 22 February 2025. His deportation was suspended following interim measures by the Court, and he remained in detention until 15 December 2025, when he was released after successful habeas corpus proceedings. He complains under Articles 2 and 3 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) concerning the risk of ill-treatment upon return, under Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 for the lack of an effective domestic remedy, and under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 ECHR regarding the lawfulness of his detention and access to legal aid.

The Court asked the parties to clarify, inter alia, whether the applicant had exhausted all effective domestic remedies, whether he faced a real risk of ill-treatment upon return to Burundi, and whether he had access to effective remedies to challenge his deportation and detention.

On 5 March 2026, the Advocate General Rimvydas Norkus issued his opinion in the case C-819/25 (PPU) [Gonrieh]. The case related to the preliminary reference by the French-speaking Brussels Court of First Instance (Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles) regarding the scope of the Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family reunification (the FRD), concerning the granting of a visa for family reunification which requires the beneficiary to appear in person for its issuance, while the person is unable to leave the third country where they reside and is facing life-threatening conditions. The questions referred enquired whether EU law applies only to the decision to grant the visa, or also to ensure that the person can effectively receive it and, whether Member States are obliged to provide assistance to enable the beneficiary to obtain the visa under such circumstances, including where their physical departure from the third country is impossible due to imminent danger.

The Advocate General considers that the implementation of EU law does not conclude with the decision of granting the visa. Relying on Article 13(1) of the FRD, which requires Member States to authorise entry and to grant “every facility for obtaining the required visas”, he concludes that the obligation extends until the issuance of the visa. That provision, read in light of the objective of the Directive to ensure the effectiveness of family reunification and recital 13 requiring efficient procedures, imposes a duty of active and continuous administrative cooperation. Accordingly, where a Member State requires the beneficiary’s personal appearance to verify identity, EU law and therefore the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, pursuant to Article 51(1) thereof, applies until the administrative formalities necessary for issuing the visa are completed. Limiting EU law to the mere approval of the visa would undermine the effectiveness of the right to family reunification.

However, the Advocate General makes a distinction between administrative facilitation and diplomatic or consular intervention. He considers that Article 13(1) does not require a Member State which has granted visas to nationals of a third country in the context of family reunification to include them in an evacuation process put in place by that Member State or to inform the authorities of any third country preventing these beneficiaries from travelling to the Union that the latter have a visa to stay in the Member State in question.  Accordingly, while Article 13(1) of Directive 2003/86 requires Member States to grant every facility for obtaining the required visas and to ensure through effective administrative measures that the visa is actually issued, it does not impose an obligation to adopt external, diplomatic or evacuation measures to secure the beneficiaries’ departure from a third country.

Unofficial translation by the EWLU team

On 15 January 2026, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled in case C-742/24 [Havvitt] concerning the reasons to refuse access to labour market for an applicant for international protection. 

The case concerned an asylum applicant’s delay in submitting the required international protection questionnaire to the competent Irish authorities despite receiving several extensions due to COVID-19 related disruptions. Due to this delay, the authorities rejected his request to access the labour market on the grounds of his alleged non-cooperation. Following domestic litigation, the Supreme Court of Ireland decided to ask the CJEU whether “delay” under Article 15(1) of Directive 2013/33/EU (RCD) must be a delay caused solely by the asylum applicant, or whether any material delay that can be partly attributed to the applicant, such as a ninemonth failure to answer an international protection questionnaire, counts as “noncooperation” even when the Member State or external factors (e.g., COVID19) also contribute. The national court also sought to determine whether the wording “attributed in part” in Ireland’s Reception Conditions Regulations 2018 is compatible with the RCD’s transposition requirements, given the discretion Member States have in implementing the rules. 

The Court recalled that access to the labour market must be granted if no first-instance decision is taken within nine months from the lodging of the application, unless the delay is attributable to the applicant. Drawing on Directive 2013/32 (APD) and the relationship between attribution of delay and obligation to cooperate under Articles 31 (3) and 13 APD, as well as its own case-law, the Court held that delays are attributable to the applicant where they result from a failure to cooperate with the authorities, including the obligation to provide information and documents necessary to examine the application. A total lack of cooperation throughout the relevant period may prevent the nine-month period from running at all, whereas partial failures to cooperate should result in the nine-month period being extended only by the time corresponding to the applicant’s failure to cooperate; any delays attributable solely to other causes should be excluded from that extension. 

Where delays have mixed causes, attributable both to the applicant and to the Member State or external factors such as a pandemic, these delay may be attributed to the applicant only where a causal link is established between the applicant’s conduct and the delay, and only to the extent of the applicant’s share of responsibility. Where it is possible to determine that share, the competent authorities may extend the nine-month period only by the fraction of time corresponding to the applicant’s contribution to the delay, not by the entire period affected by mixed causes.  

Finally, the Court found that Article 15(1) RCD allows a Member State to refuse labour market access where the application has been pending for at least nine months and the delay is partly attributable to the applicant, provided the refusal is based only on the period or proportion of delay causally linked to the applicant’s conduct.