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