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
CJEU - C‑474/13, Thi Ly Pham v Stadt Schweinfurt, Amt für Meldewesen und Statistik
Country of applicant:
Vietnam
A member state cannot rely on the fact that there are no specialized detention facilities in a part of its territory to justify keeping non-citizens in prison pending their removal. The same rule applies even if the migration detainee has consented to being confined to prison.
Date of decision:
17-07-2014
Relevant International and European Legislation:
EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 16,Article 18,EN - Returns Directive, Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008,Recital (17),Article 15,1.,5.,6.