Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Reset
CJEU – C-233/18 Haqbin, 12 November 2019
Country of applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Duty of applicant, Unaccompanied minor, Reception conditions, Accommodation centre, Material reception conditions, Vulnerable person
A sanction imposed in response of serious breaches of the rules of the accommodation centre or of seriously violent behaviour on behalf of an applicant for international protection cannot include withdrawal of material reception conditions relating to housing, food or clothing, even if it is temporary. Authorities should take into particular consideration any such sanction in cases of vulnerable applicants and unaccompanied minors.
Date of decision: 12-11-2019
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 1,Article 24,Recital (35),Article 2,Article 8,Article 17,Article 20,Article 21,Article 22,Article 23,Article 24
CJEU – Case C-181/16 Gnandi, 19 June 2018
Country of applicant: Togo
Keywords: Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Reception conditions, Return

Member States can issue a return decision together with, or right after, a negative decision on an asylum application at first instance, as long as they ensure that all judicial effects of the return decision are suspended during the time allowed to appeal and pending that appeal.

During that period, and despite being subjected to a return decision, an asylum applicant must enjoy all the rights under the Reception Conditions Directive. The applicant can rely upon any changes in circumstances affecting his claim that came up after the return decision, before the appeals authority.

Date of decision: 19-06-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 39,Art 7,Art 33.1,Recital 2,Recital 8,Recital (9),Article 46,Recital (2),Recital (4),Recital (6),Recital (8),Recital (9),Recital (12),Recital (24),Article 2,Article 3,Article 6,Article 7,Article 8,Article 9,Article 13,1.,Article 2,Article 3
CJEU - C-647/16 A.H v Préfet du Pas-de Calais, 31 May 2018
Keywords: Responsibility for examining application, Dublin Transfer, Request to take back

Article 26(1) of the Dublin III Regulation precludes the issuance of a transfer decision by the determining Member-State until the requested Member-State implicitly or explicitly accepts the take charge/back request.

 

Date of decision: 31-05-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: Recital (4),Recital (5),Recital (9),Recital (19),Article 3,Article 5,Article 8,Article 19,Article 21,Article 22,Article 24,Article 25,Article 26,Article 27,Article 28,Article 29,Article 2,Article 7,Article 8,Article 9,Article 26
CJEU - C-647/16 A.H v Préfet du Pas-de Calais, 31 May 2018
Keywords: Responsibility for examining application, Dublin Transfer, Request to take back

Article 26(1) of the Dublin III Regulation precludes the issuance of a transfer decision by the determining Member-State until the requested Member-State implicitly or explicitly accepts the take charge/back request.

 

Date of decision: 31-05-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: Recital (4),Recital (5),Recital (9),Recital (19),Article 3,Article 5,Article 8,Article 19,Article 21,Article 22,Article 24,Article 25,Article 26,Article 27,Article 28,Article 29,Article 2,Article 7,Article 8,Article 9,Article 26
Slovenia - Administrative Court of the Republic of Slovenia, 29 July 2016, Judgment I U 1102/2016
Country of applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Detention, Standard of proof, Dublin Transfer

The Slovenian legislature has not fulfilled its obligations under the provisions of Article 2(n) of the Dublin Regulation. The possibility of an analogous application of Article 68 of the Aliens Act-2 has a very weak basis in terms of the objective criteria required. It can only be sufficient in a particular case if in light of the specific circumstances of the case there is no doubt about the existence of the risk of absconding.

Date of decision: 29-07-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,Art 31,European Union Law,International Law,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 6,Article 53,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Recital (27),Recital (54),Article 9,Article 26,EN - Returns Directive, Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008,Recital (9),Article 3,Article 15,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 5,EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation),Article 2,Article 28,Article 49,EN - Recast Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2013/33/EU of 26 June 2013,Recital (15),Recital (16),Recital (17),Recital (18),Recital (19),Recital (20),Article 2,Article 7,Article 8,Article 9,Article 10,Article 11,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 78
CJEU - C‑601/15 PPU, J. N. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
Country of applicant: Unknown
Keywords: Detention, Return

Article 8(3)(e) of the recast Reception Conditions Directive fulfils the requirements of proportionality by virtue of the strictly circumscribed framework regulating its use. In light of Article 52(3) of the Charter, Article 8(3)(e) therefore complies with Article 5(1)(f) of the ECHR.

Date of decision: 15-02-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 6,Article 52,EN - Returns Directive, Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008,Recital (4),Article 3,Article 7,Article 8,Article 11,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 5,Art 5.1,Art 5.1 (f),Art 5.2,EN - Recast Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2013/33/EU of 26 June 2013,Recital (15),Recital (16),Recital (17),Recital (18),Recital (20),Recital (35),Article 2,Article 8,Article 9
Netherlands - Court of The Hague, 13 January 2016, AWB 15/22376
Country of applicant: Iran
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Detention

This case is concerned with whether an appeal against the lawfulness of an asylum applicant’s detention was allowed. Thus the prejudicial question was formulated questioning whether the measure under article 8(3)(a-b) recast Reception Conditions Directive is valid with regards to the provisions in Article 6 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFREU) subject to Article 5 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Date of decision: 13-01-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 6,Article 52,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Article 2,Article 9,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 5,EN - Recast Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2013/33/EU of 26 June 2013,Article 2,Article 8,Article 9,Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01,Article 267 § 2,Article 267 § 1 (b)