Case summaries

  • My search
  • Keywords
    1
Reset
CJEU – C-255/19 Secretary of State for the Home Department v OA, 20 January 2021
Country of applicant: Somalia

In the context of cessation of refugee status under Article 11 (1)(e), the change in circumstances must remedy the reasons which led to the recognition of refugee status; a country of origin’s ability or inability to demonstrate that it can provide protection from acts of persecution constitutes ‘a crucial element’ in this assessment.

Mere social and financial support to the third country national is inherently incapable of either preventing acts of persecution or of detecting, prosecuting and punishing such acts and, therefore, cannot be regarded as providing the protection required by Article 11(1)(e). In order to determine whether the third-country national still has a well-founded fear of persecution, the existence of protection against acts of persecution should be considered when examining the change in circumstances.

Date of decision: 20-01-2021
CJEU – C-507/19, Bundesrepublik Deutschland v. XT, 13 January 2021
Country of applicant: Syria

When analysing if protection from UNRWA has ceased (Article 12(1)(a) Directive 2011/95), account must be taken of the possibility for the individual to concretely access effective protection in any of the other fields within UNRWA area of operations.

Assistance from the Agency must be considered as maintained when an individual has left UNRWA area of operations from a field where he couldn’t obtain effective protection, if the person had previously voluntarily left a field where he could access UNRWA’s assistance, even though he could reasonably foresee, according to the information available for him at the moment of departure, that he wouldn’t be able to receive effective protection from the Agency in the field he was travelling to, or return to the field of origin in the short term.

Date of decision: 13-01-2021
CJEU - C-720/17 Bilali, 23 May 2019
Country of applicant: Algeria, Morocco

Member States are required to revoke subsidiary protection on the basis of art. 19(1), if they find out that the conditions that led to the granting of status were never met, regardless of whether the incorrect assessment of facts leading to the status is imputable exclusively to the national authority itself

Date of decision: 23-05-2019
CJEU – Joined Cases C-391/16, C-77/17 and C-78/17, M (Révocation du statut de réfugié)
Country of applicant: Congo (DRC), Ivory Coast, Russia, Russia (Chechnya)
The provisions of Article 14(4) to (6) of Directive 2011/95 cannot be interpreted as meaning that the effect of the revocation or the refusal of the refugee status is that the person concerned, who satisfies the material conditions set forth in Article 1A of the Geneva Convention, is excluded from international protection. Member States, when implementing Article 14(4) and (5) of the directive, are required to grant refugees who are present in their respective territories only the rights expressly referred to in Article 14(6) of that directive and the rights set out in the Geneva Convention that are guaranteed for any refugee who is present in the territory of a Contracting State and do not require a lawful stay.

Article 21(2) of the directive precludes Member States from issuing a measure of refoulement or expulsion against the persons covered by one of the scenarios described in Article 14(4) and (5) of Directive 2011/95 if this would expose the concerned persons to the risk of their fundamental rights as enshrined in Article 4 and Article 19(2) of the Charter of fundamental rights of the EU.

Date of decision: 14-05-2019
UK - The Secretary of State for the Home Department v MA (Somalia), Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 2 May 2018
Country of applicant: Somalia

UK Court of Appeal rules on the correct test to use when making a decision on cessation of refugee status.

Date of decision: 02-05-2018
ECtHR Krasniqi v. Austria (no. 41697/12)
Country of applicant: Kosovo

Every country has the right to control the entry and residence of aliens in its territory. Withdrawal of subsidiary protection from individuals convicted of serious crimes and subsequent expulsion does not violate their right to family life under Article 8, when there are alternative means of communication, non-severed cultural ties with the motherland and a reasonable prospect of return after the entry ban expiry.

 

Date of decision: 25-04-2017
Greece - Hellenic Council of State, 16 December 2014, 4527/2014
Country of applicant: Palestinian Territory, Syria

The appellant sought to have the decision of the Secretary General of the Ministry of Public Order annulled, under which her previous application for her and her son to be recognised as refugees had been rejected. The Hellenic Council of State rejected the current appeal, due to the fact that the appellant had invoked financial reasons for leaving Syria and as such, had no legal basis to be recognised as a refugee. 

Date of decision: 16-12-2014
Spain - Spanish Supreme Court (Tribunal Supremo), Cassation and Procedural Breach Appeal, 23 September 2014 (Appeal Nº 1382/2013)
Country of applicant: Ghana

The Supreme Court held that an immigrant whose passport or equivalent identity document reveals their minority cannot be subjected to additional tests in order to determine his age unless a proportionality judgment about the document’s reliability has first been carried out. The Court also held that medical techniques to determine an age cannot be applied indiscriminately.

Date of decision: 23-09-2014
Slovenia - Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, 5 September 2013, I Up 309/2013
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

In the procedure for extending subsidiary protection all reasons that the Applicant stated in his application for international protection are relevant and not merely the reasons on the basis of which subsidiary protection was recognised.

Date of decision: 05-09-2013
Belgium - Council for Alien Law Litigation, 23 May 2013, Nr 103.509
Country of applicant: Lebanon

The Applicant had been forced to leave the UNRWA’s area of operations. The facts that had led to his departure from Lebanon justified ending his exclusion from the application of Article 1D of the Geneva Convention.

Date of decision: 23-05-2013