Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Reset
CJEU – Joined Cases C-391/16, C-77/17 and C-78/17, M (Révocation du statut de réfugié)
Country of applicant: Congo (DRC), Ivory Coast, Russia, Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: Exclusion from protection, Non-refoulement, Revocation of protection status, Serious non-political crime, Refugee Status, Cessation of protection
The provisions of Article 14(4) to (6) of Directive 2011/95 cannot be interpreted as meaning that the effect of the revocation or the refusal of the refugee status is that the person concerned, who satisfies the material conditions set forth in Article 1A of the Geneva Convention, is excluded from international protection. Member States, when implementing Article 14(4) and (5) of the directive, are required to grant refugees who are present in their respective territories only the rights expressly referred to in Article 14(6) of that directive and the rights set out in the Geneva Convention that are guaranteed for any refugee who is present in the territory of a Contracting State and do not require a lawful stay.

Article 21(2) of the directive precludes Member States from issuing a measure of refoulement or expulsion against the persons covered by one of the scenarios described in Article 14(4) and (5) of Directive 2011/95 if this would expose the concerned persons to the risk of their fundamental rights as enshrined in Article 4 and Article 19(2) of the Charter of fundamental rights of the EU.

Date of decision: 14-05-2019
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 18,Article 2,Article 11,Article 12,Article 13,Article 14,Article 21,Article 24,Article 28,Article 34,Article 6,Article 78
CJEU - Case C‑713/17, Ayubi, 21 November 2018
Country of applicant: Unknown
Keywords: Subsidiary Protection, Temporary protection, Refugee Status, Discrimination, Integration measures

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
CJEU - C‑662/17, E.G. v Republika Slovenija
Country of applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Effective remedy (right to), Subsidiary Protection, Refugee Status

The CJEU ruled on whether an individual could appeal a decision which refused refugee status but granted subsidiary protection status, even if the rights and benefits afforded by each international protection status are identical in national law.

Date of decision: 18-10-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 1,Article 10,Article 46,Art 46,Recital (8),Recital (9),Recital (39),Article 2,Article 3,Article 11,Article 12,Article 14,Article 16,Article 17,Article 19,Article 20,Article 21,Article 24
Austria - Regional Administrative Court of Upper Austria, LVwG-350363/15/KLi/CHö, 18 December 2017
Country of applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Subsidiary Protection, Protection, Refugee Status, More favourable provisions

The Regional Administrative Court of Upper Austria requests a preliminary ruling of the CJEU concerning the interpretation of Article 29 Directive 2011/95/EU in the context of social assistance for persons entitled to asylum with a temporary residence permit.

1) Must Article 29 Directive 2011/95/EU, entitling persons subject to international protection to the same level of social assistance in the Member State as nationals of this Member State, be interpreted as fulfilling the conditions for direct effect as set out in the CJEU’s jurisprudence?

2) Must Article 29 Directive 2011/95/EU be interpreted in the way, that it opposes national legislation that provides for persons with a temporary residence permit the same level of social assistance as for persons falling under subsidiary protection, while persons with a permanent residence permit are allowed to the social assistance provided for nationals of the Member State concerned?

Date of decision: 18-12-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011,Article 3,Article 24,Article 29,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,Article 267 § 2,Article 267 § 1 (b)
Spain: National Court. Chamber of Contentious-Administrative Proceedings n. 5177/2017, 5th December 2017, Appeal No. 234/2017
Country of applicant: Gambia
Keywords: Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Personal circumstances of applicant, Well-founded fear, Family unity (right to)

When examining the acceptance of an asylum claim, the authorities have to study whether the testimony of the applicant is based on presumably true facts. Only if it is manifestly false could the admission of this application be denied.

The principle of family unity has to be taken into account regarding the assessment of the circumstances of the applicant, especially since his sister’s application for international protection was accepted.

Date of decision: 05-12-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 1A (2),Art 1F,Art 33,Article 7,Article 11,Article 23,Article 24,Article 25,Article 26,Article 27,Article 28,Article 29,Article 30,Article 31,Article 32,Article 33,Article 34,Article 35