Case summaries
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.
The Federal Administrative Court found that Art. 3 of the Qualification Directive does not hinder Member States to allow parents and siblings, fulfilling the requirements for family members under Art. 2(j) of the Directive, to change their status of subsidiary protection into a refugee status which they derive from their minor sponsor.
The Court of Justice held that Directive 2011/95 does not preclude a Member State from granting refugee status to a minor through one of his parents, even though there is no risk of persecution in case of removal to his country of nationality (Tunisia).
The Court decides that the relevant point in time to assess the ‘minor’ status of a beneficiary of international protection under the Qualification Directive is the date on which the applicant makes an (informal) application for international protection.
The Court decides that the notion of ‘family member’ under the Qualification Directive does not require an actual resumption of family life between the parent who benefited international protection and the child. Furthermore, the rights of a family member to claim the benefits under the Qualification Directive persist after the beneficiary of subsidiary protection reaches the age of majority, for the duration of the period of validity of the residence permit granted to them.
A Guinean woman who has been forced into marriage at a young age and subsequently harassed into marrying her late husband’s brother, is a refugee under article 1, section A §2 of the Geneva Convention. She risks being persecuted by reason of her membership in the social group of women, and considering the regular violation of women’s rights occuring in Guinea.
Article 11(2) of Directive 2003/86 must be interpreted as precluding the rejection of an application for family reunification lodged by a sponsor in favour of a minor of whom she is allegedly the guardian solely on the grounds of lack of official documentary evidence of the family relationship and the sponsor’s inability to explain the absence of such evidence being deemed implausible on the basis of general country of origin information.
Authorities have to take into consideration the specific circumstances of the sponsor and the minor, including the difficulties they faced during and after their flight from their country.
Non-Citizen children of the State have rights protected by the Constitution when in the State, including rights under Article 41, 42 and 40.3. However, the right to reside in the State is a protection under Article 40.3 which is reserved for Irish citizen children. It is the citizenship of the child that confers this right to live in the State under Article 40.3.
The best interests of the child are considerations that must be assessed when deciding upon a deportation order for a child. However, as the Convention on the Rights of Child has been ratified by Ireland but has not been implemented as part of domestic law, the Court is not bound to view the best interests of the child as the primary consideration.
A Member State is responsible for the asylum application of an unaccompanied minor if the minor does not have a family member in said Member State and the minor's application has been finally rejected in another Member State, provided that the unaccompanied minor resides in the relevant Member State.
The responsibility for examining an application does not cease to apply upon the mere acceptance of a request to take charge by another Member State.
This case concerns the interpretation of Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 when an unaccompanied child submits more than one asylum application in two Member States and does not have any family members present in the territories of the Member States. In such circumstances the CJEU held that the responsible Member State is the one in which the child is present after having lodged an asylum application there.
Applicant M was a citizen of Algeria who applied for a residence document in Finland on grounds of family relations. He/she was married to a sponsor called L and they had a joint minor child. L had another child from a previous marriage. A prerequisite for M to be granted a residence document was for him/her to have sufficient income, which he/she did not have. There was also the question of whether denying a residence document breached the Union citizen’s rights under Article 20 of the TFEU. The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that denying a residence document did not breach the Unio citizen’s rights. In addition, there were no factors which would support deviating from the means of support prerequisite as stated in the law.