Case summaries
CJEU - P.I. v Migracijos departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerijos, Case C-280/21, 12/01/2023
Country of applicant:
Unknown
Keywords:
Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Persecution (acts of), Refugee Status, Political Opinion
The Court of Justice held that defending personal interests against illegally acting non-state actors due to state corruption can be regarded as ‘political opinion’ under Directive 2011/95 if perceived as opposition by the persecuting actors.
Date of decision:
12-01-2023
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Art 1A (2),Art 1F(c),Art 28,Art 34,Art 1F(b),Art 1,Art 3,Art 1A,Art 1F(a),Art 32,Art 1C (5),Art 35.1,Art 1D,Art 31,Art 4,Art 16,Art 22,Art 2,Art 13,Art 15,Art 17,Art 21,Art 24,Art 26,Art 27,Art 32.1,Art 33.1,Art 1C (6),Preamble,Art 35,Art 1C (3),Article 1,Article 7,Article 16,Article 18,Art 24.1,Art 24.2,Art 24.3,Article 35,Art 1A (1),Art 1B,Art 1B (1),Art 1B (2),Art 1C (1),Art 1C (2),Art 1C (4),Art 1E,Art 5,Art 6,Art 7,Art 8,Art 9,Art 10,Art 11,Art 12,Art 14,Art 18,Art 19,Art 20,Art 23,Art 25,Art 29,Art 30,Art 32.2,Art 32.3,Art 35.2,Art 36,Art 37,Art 1C,Art 11.1,Art 11.2,Art 14.1,Art 14.2,Art 14.3,Art 15.1,Art 15.2,Art 15.3,Art 21.1,Art 21.2,Art 34.1,Art 34.2,Art 34.3,Art 12.1,Art 12.2,Art 16.1,Art 16.2,Art 16.3,Art 17.1,Art 17.2,Art 17.3,Art 19.1,Art 19.2,Art 22.1,Art 22.2,Art 24.1,Art 24.2,Art 24.3,Art 24.4,Art 25.1,Art 25.2,Art 25.3,Art 25.4,Art 25.5,Art 28.1,Art 28.2,Art 29.1,Art 29.2,Art 30.1,Art 30.2,Art 31.1,Art 31.2,Art 33.2,Art 38,Art 39,Art 40,Art 41,Art 42,Art 43,Art 44,Art 45,Art 46,Schedule,Article 15,Recital (4),Recital (12),Recital (16),Recital (29),Article 2,Article 4,Article 6,Article 9,Article 10,Article 13,EN - Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01 - Art 288,Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01 - Art 10,Article 267 § 2,Article 267 § 1 (b),Article 78
ECtHR - M.A. v. Denmark, Application no. 6697/18, 2021
Country of applicant:
Syria
Keywords:
Temporary protection, Family reunification
Except for very limited exceptions, the statutory three-year waiting period for family reunification of persons granted ‘temporary protection’ does not allow for an individualised assessment of the interest of family unity in light of the concrete situation of the persons concerned. Eventually the Court finds a violation of Article 8 of the Convention since the measure (whose goal is not otherwise challenged) had a disproportionate impact in the case at hand.
Date of decision:
09-07-2021
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Art 1A (2),Art 1F(c),Art 28,Art 34,Art 1F(b),Art 1,Art 3,Art 1A,Art 1F(a),Art 32,Art 1C (5),Art 35.1,Art 1D,Art 31,Art 4,Art 16,Art 22,Art 2,Art 13,Art 15,Art 17,Art 21,Art 24,Art 26,Art 27,Art 32.1,Art 33.1,Art 1C (6),Preamble,Art 35,Art 1C (3),Article 3,Article 8,1.,2.,Art 1A (1),Art 1B,Art 1B (1),Art 1B (2),Art 1C (1),Art 1C (2),Art 1C (4),Art 1E,Art 5,Art 6,Art 7,Art 8,Art 9,Art 10,Art 11,Art 12,Art 14,Art 18,Art 19,Art 20,Art 23,Art 25,Art 29,Art 30,Art 32.2,Art 32.3,Art 35.2,Art 36,Art 37,Art 1C,Art 12.1,Art 12.2,Art 16.1,Art 16.2,Art 16.3,Art 17.1,Art 17.2,Art 17.3,Art 19.1,Art 19.2,Art 22.1,Art 22.2,Art 24.1,Art 24.2,Art 24.3,Art 24.4,Art 25.1,Art 25.2,Art 25.3,Art 25.4,Art 25.5,Art 28.1,Art 28.2,Art 29.1,Art 29.2,Art 30.1,Art 30.2,Art 31.1,Art 31.2,Art 33.2,Art 38,Art 39,Art 40,Art 41,Art 42,Art 43,Art 44,Art 45,Art 46,Schedule,Article 3,Article 14,Art 8.1,Art 8.2,Article 2,Article 23,EN - Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01 - Art 288
ECtHR - N.D. and N.T. v. Spain [GC], nos. 8675/15 and 8697/15, 13 February 2020
Country of applicant:
Ivory Coast, Mali
Keywords:
Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Procedural guarantees, Return
The Court found no violation of the Convention given that the applicants would have had access to a genuine and effective possibility of submitting arguments against their expulsion had they entered lawfully into Spain – they did not have any “cogent reasons” for not using the border procedures available at designated entry points. As such, the lack of an individualised procedure for their removal was the consequence of their own conduct.
Date of decision:
13-02-2020
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Art 1,Art 3,Art 32,Art 33,Art 31,Art 4,Art 16,Art 22,Article 4,Article 18,Article 19,Art 19.1,Art 19.2,Article 47,Article 6,Article 7,Article 8,Article 9,Article 10,Article 1,Article 2,Article 4,Article 5,Article 8,Article 12,Article 13,Art 33.2,Article 1,Article 3,Article 13,Article 13,Article 2,Article 4,Article 14,Article 21,Art 4,Art. 3,Article 67,Article 78
Greece - Single Judge Court of First Instance of Athens, Decision no. 16244/2019, 21 December 2019
The domestic body of civil law and civil procedure relating to family disputes was found to be applicable in accordance with Articles 12 and 16 of the 1951 Geneva Convention, as the applicant was a recognised refugee in the country and needed to end her marriage.
Date of decision:
31-12-2019
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Art 16,Art 12,Art 12.1,Art 12.2,Art 16.1,Art 16.2,Art 16.3
UK - Court of Appeal, 26 September 2009, EN (Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2009] EWCA Civ 630
Country of applicant:
Serbia, South Africa
Keywords:
Non-refoulement
Art 14.4 (a) of the Qualification Directive must be interpreted in accordance with Art 33.2 of the Refugee Convention. Thus, for the provisions to be applied, the individual must (1) have been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime and (2) constitute a danger to the community. It was not compatible with either Art 14.4 (a) of the Qualification Directive or Art 33.2 of the Refugee Convention for domestic legislation to provide that the conviction of certain crimes to create a presumption, that could not be rebutted, that the provisions applied to an individual. Any such presumptions had to be capable of being rebutted by the individual.
Date of decision:
26-09-2009
Relevant International and European Legislation:
EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 1,Art 2,Art 14,Art 3,Art 32,Art 33,Art 31,Art 4,Art 16,Art 22,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 2,Article 3
UK - Court of Appeal, 26 July 2002, El-Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 1103
Country of applicant:
Lebanon, Palestinian Territory
Keywords:
Exclusion from protection
Art 1D of the 1951 Refugee Convention only applies to Palestinians who met two criteria. First of all, they had to have been in receipt of United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (“UNRWA”) protection or assistance on or before 28 July 1951 which was the date that the Convention was adopted. Secondly, whilst UNRWA’s mandate continued, if such Palestinians had left UNRWA’s field of operation they would have to show that they were in “exceptional circumstance”; for example if they were prevented from returning to UNRWA’s field of operation.
Date of decision:
26-07-2002
Relevant International and European Legislation:
EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 12,Art 28,Art 1,Art 3,Art 32,Art 33,Art 31,Art 4,Art 16,Art 22,Art 2,Art 13,Art 15,Art 17,Art 21,Art 24,Art 26,Art 27