Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Reset
Bulgaria, CJEU (Second Chamber), Aleb, C-718/24, 5 February 2026
Country of applicant: Syria
Keywords: Safe third country, Withdrawal of protection application, Refugee Status

The safe third country ground under Article 33(2)(c) of Directive 2013/32 is optional; an application may be declared inadmissible on that basis even if the applicant qualifies for international protection, but it cannot be rejected as unfounded on that ground.

Article 38 requires national law to define criteria establishing a sufficient connection between the applicant and the third country to make transfer reasonable.

Article 38(2)(b) and (c) of Directive 2013/32 permits reliance on publicly available sources and executive lists of safe third countries, provided that national law sets out a methodology for an individualised assessment of safety and allows the applicant to challenge the existence of the required connection.

Courts hearing appeals must verify the existence of such a connection, even if national law does not expressly grant that power.

 

Date of decision: 05-02-2026
Relevant International and European Legislation: Recital (18),Recital (43),Recital (44),Recital (46),Article 6,Article 7,Article 8,Article 9,Article 10,Article 11,Article 12,Article 13,Article 14,Article 15,Article 16,Article 17,Article 18,Article 19,Article 20,Article 21,Article 22,Article 23,Article 24,Article 25,Article 26,Article 27,Article 28,Article 29,Article 30,Article 32,Article 33,Article 46,Article 2,Article 15,Article 267 § 2,Article 267 § 1 (b)
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
ECtHR - N.D. and N.T. v. Spain, Application Nos. 8675/15 and 8697/15, 3 October 2017
Country of applicant: Ivory Coast, Mali
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Procedural guarantees, Return

NB: the case was referred to the Grand Chamber, which issued a new ruling on 13 February 2020. For the EDAL summary of the final judgment, see here.

The continued and exclusive control of contracting State's authorities over individuals creates, at least, a de facto exercise of jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 1 ECHR. 

In light of Spain's jurisdiction over N.D. and N.T, who had attempted to cross the fences separating Morocco from Melilla, Spain was bound by the prohibition of collective expulsions under the Convention. A standardised response of removal to the applicants attempted entry to the Spanish territory without any identification procedure or administrative or judicial measure being first taken meant that the Spanish authorities had violated Article 4 Protocol 4 to the Convention. 
 
The collective expulsion of the applicants was clearly linked to their inability to access a national procedure which would satisfy Article 13 requirements.The applicants had, therefore, also been denied an effective and rigorous remedy which would allow them to contest the collective expulsion. 
Date of decision: 03-10-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 18,Article 19,Article 47,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Article 8,Article 9,Article 11,Article 12,EN - Returns Directive, Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008,Article 1,Article 2,Article 8,Article 12,Article 13,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 1,Article 13,Article 41,ECHR (Fourth Protocol),Art 4,Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01,EN - Treaty on European Union,Article 2,Article 6,Article 78
Ireland - F.O. (Nigeria) H.O.O (Nigeria)(an infant suing by his mother and next friend F.O.) -v- Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, Ireland and the Attorney General
Country of applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Best interest of the child, Credibility assessment, Relevant Documentation, Membership of a particular social group, Political Opinion, Obligation to give reasons

The case dealt primarily with the standard of reasoning required in credibility assessment among other issues (travel findings and best interests of the child). In quashing the RAT decision, the High Court ruled that the RAT had not met the standard of reasoning required in assessment of the credibility of oral testimony (as established in the jurisprudence of the Court and EU law), reiterating the obligation upon the decision maker to ensure that each negative credibility finding is accompanied by an adequate rationale clearly outlining the reasons for such findings.

Date of decision: 17-12-2015
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Art 4,European Union Law,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Article 8
Slovenia - Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, 10 April 2014, Judgment I Up 117/2014
Country of applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Circumstances ceased to exist, Country of origin information, Indiscriminate violence, Relevant Facts, Relevant Documentation, Serious harm, Subsidiary Protection

By not considering country information submitted by the applicant, the Slovenian Migration Office did not establish all relevant facts and circumstances of the case before it. The Office had not clearly and precisely explained which reasons it considered as decisive in determining that the degree of indiscriminate violence in the applicant’s country of origin did not reach such a level that the applicant would be subjected to a serious and individual threat to his life or person in the event of return to his country of origin.

Date of decision: 10-04-2014
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Article 8,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Article 4,Article 15,Article 19