Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Reset
C-556/17 - Torubarov, 29 July 2019
Country of applicant: Russia
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Effective remedy (right to), Refugee Status, Final decision

In order to guarantee that an applicant for international protection has an effective judicial remedy within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter, a national court or tribunal is required to vary a decision of the first-instance determining body that does not comply with its previous judgment. The court or tribunal must substitute its own decision on the application for international protection by disapplying, if necessary, the national law that prohibits it from proceeding in that way.  

Date of decision: 29-07-2019
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 47,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Recital (18),Recital (50),Recital (60),Article 2,Article 46,Article 51,Article 52,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Article 1,Article 2,Article 13,Article 14,Article 15,Article 18,Article 19
CJEU - C-585/16 Alheto, 25 July 2018
Country of applicant: Palestinian Territory
Keywords: Exclusion from protection, Protection, Inadmissible application

Where a person is registered with UNRWA and then later applies for international protection in a European Union Member State such persons are in principle excluded from refugee status in the European Union unless it becomes evident, on the basis of an individualised assessment of all relevant evidence, that their personal safety is at serious risk and it is impossible for UNRWA to guarantee that the living conditions are compatible with its mission and that due to these circumstances the individual has been forced to leave the UNRWA area of operations. 

 

Date of decision: 25-07-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,European Union Law,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 47,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Article 1,Article 5,Article 10,Article 13,Article 33,Article 35,Article 38,Article 46,Article 51,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Article 2,Article 4,Article 5,Article 7,Article 9,Article 12,Article 15,Article 17,Article 21,Article 40
Germany – Federal Administrative Court, 11 July 2018, BVerwG 1 C 18.17
Country of applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Delay, Effective remedy (right to), Personal interview, Procedural guarantees

The Federal Administrative Court has to clarify whether the petition for action directed solely at the obligation to decide on the asylum application is admissible. The question if it is also possible to directly oblige the defendant to grant international protection or to establish prohibitions on deportation by means of an action is not the subject of the decision. As a result, the court comes to the conclusion that there was a delay by the respondent of providing the decision on the asylum application without sufficient reason and that the plaintiff has a need for legal protection for its action for failure to act.

Date of decision: 11-07-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 39.1,Art 4,Art 17,Recital 11,Art 2,Art 2 (e),Art 14.2,Art 13,Recital 13,Art 12.2,Article 47,Recital (18),Recital (25),Article 2,Article 4,Article 14,Article 15,Article 17,Article 31,Article 46,Article 51,Recital 10,Art 4.3,Art 12.4,Art 13.1,Art 13.2,Art 13.3,Art 17.4 (b),Art 23.2 (b),Article 4
Hungary - Metropolitan Administrative and Labour Court, 14 December 2016, 17.K.33.921/2016/7-II
Country of applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Procedural guarantees

The Court quashed the decision of the Office of Immigration and Nationality (OIN) based on the fact that it did not meet its duty to actively provide the Applicant the possibility to resolve contradictions in his statements, as required by Article 16 of the Recast Procedures Directive (RPD).

Date of decision: 14-12-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 41,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Article 16,Article 51
Germany – Administrative Court Berlin, 11 September 2016, 33 K 152.15 A
Country of applicant: Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: First country of asylum, Revocation of protection status, Subsidiary Protection, Refugee Status, Inadmissible application

A renewed application for asylum in a second country is admissible if the nature of international protection applied for differs from the protection already granted. Deportation to the country of the first application or the country of origin is not to be taken into account in this situation.

Date of decision: 11-09-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Art 17,Art 15,Art 13,Art 14,European Union Law,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 18,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Article 10,Article 33,Article 40,Article 46,Article 51,EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,Article 3,Article 16,Article 20,EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation),Article 3,Article 18,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Article 3,Article 12,Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01,Article 78