Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
CJEU - P.I. v Migracijos departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerijos, Case C-280/21, 12/01/2023
Country of applicant: Unknown

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

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
CJEU - Case C‑713/17, Ayubi, 21 November 2018
Country of applicant: Unknown

Persons entitled to refugee protection should be accorded the same treatment regarding assistance as provided to nationals of the Member State. Article 29 Directive 2011/95 and Article 23 Geneva Convention do not make this treatment dependant on the length of the applicant’s stay in the Member State. 

A refugee may rely on the incompatibility of legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, with Article 29(1) of Directive 2011/95 before the national courts in order to remove the restriction on his rights provided for by that legislation.

Date of decision: 21-11-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 23,Article 2,Article 24,Article 29
Ireland - Agha (a minor) & Ors v. Minister for Social Protection & Ors, 17 January 2017
Country of applicant: Afghanistan, Nigeria
Keywords: Refugee Status

Analysing the legality of the refusal to grant child benefit payments to parents who are not habitually resident within the State for the benefit of their children.

Date of decision: 17-01-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,Art 23,Art 28,Art 20,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 18,Recital 14,Recital 33,Recital 34,EN - Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003,Art 23,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 8
Poland - Judgement of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw from 7 October 2016 I SA/Wa 1197/16 quashing the decision of the President of Warsaw who refused granting child care benefit “500+” to a person with refugee status

The purpose of the child care benefit “500 ” envisaged in the Law of 11 February 2016 is to provide assistance to parents and guardians in raising children by covering some expenses related to their needs. Excluding refugees from persons entitled to this benefit because their residence card does not contain a note “access to labour market” would lead to unfair differentiation of the legal situation of the foreigners (dividing them into those who were issued a residence card with the note “access to labour market“ and those issued a residence card without this note) and of the children (because of their origin and nationality). 

Date of decision: 07-10-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,European Union Law,International Law,Art 23,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Article 26,Article 29,UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
CJEU - Joined Cases C‑443/14 and C‑444/14, Kreis Warendorf v Ibrahim Alo and Amira Osso v Region Hannover
Country of applicant: Syria

Article 33 of the Qualification Directive, read in conjunction with the Geneva Convention, requires Member States to allow persons to whom they have granted subsidiary protection status not only to move freely within their territory but also to choose their place of residence within that territory.  However, the Directive does not prevent beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status from being subject to a residence condition for the purpose of promoting their integration where said group of persons are not in a comparable situation as non-EU citizens. 

Date of decision: 01-03-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Art 32,Art 26,European Union Law,International Law,Art 23,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Recital (3),Recital (4),Recital (6),Recital (8),Recital (9),Recital (16),Recital (23),Recital (24),Recital (33),Recital (39),Article 20,Article 29,Article 32,Article 33
ECtHR - Saidoun and Fawsie v. Greece, Application Nos. 40083/07 and 40080/07
Country of applicant: Lebanon, Syria
Keywords: Refugee Status

Refusal to grant social security to political refugees was in breach of the Convention.

Date of decision: 28-01-2011
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 23,Article 8,Article 14,Article 41
Italy - Court of Milan, 5 December 2007, RG 8802/2006
Country of applicant: Congo (DRC)

Foreign citizens with refugee status have the same rights as Italian citizens as regards social assistance and related rights such as, for example, payment of attendance allowance under L.18/80.

Date of decision: 05-12-2007
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 24,Art 23