Last Updated: Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:30 GMT

Case Law

Case Law includes national and international jurisprudential decisions. Administrative bodies and tribunals are included.
Filter:
Showing 1-10 of 12,358 results
E. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (C‑635/17) (request for preliminary ruling)

1. The Court of Justice of the European Union has jurisdiction, on the basis of Article 267 TFEU, to interpret Article 11(2) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where a national court is called upon to rule on an application for family reunification lodged by a beneficiary of subsidiary protection, if that provision was made directly and unconditionally applicable to such a situation under national law. 2. Article 11(2) of Directive 2003/86 must be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in which an application for family reunification has been lodged by a sponsor benefiting from subsidiary protection in favour of a minor of whom she is the aunt and allegedly the guardian, and who resides as a refugee and without family ties in a third country, that application from being rejected solely on the ground that the sponsor has not provided official documentary evidence of the death of the minor’s biological parents and, consequently, that she has an actual family relationship with him, and that the explanation given by the sponsor to justify her inability to provide such evidence has been deemed implausible by the competent authorities solely on the basis of the general information available concerning the situation in the country of origin, without taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the sponsor and the minor and the particular difficulties they have encountered, according to their testimony, before and after fleeing their country of origin.

13 March 2019 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Country of origin information (COI) - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Family reunification | Countries: Eritrea - Netherlands

WA (PAKISTAN) v. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

the appropriate guidance for a decision-maker can be summarised as follows: i) Is the Claimant genuinely an Ahmadi? In answering that question the guidance set out in paragraph 5 of the headnote in MN is well expressed. ii) The next step involves an inquiry into the Claimant’s behaviour if he or she is returned to Pakistan. Will he or she actually behave in such a way as to attract persecution? In answering that question, the decision-maker will again consider all the evidence and will, where appropriate, expressly consider whether the behaviour claimed by the asylum-seeker is genuinely an expression of their religious belief and is an authentic account of the way they will behave if returned. iii) If the decision-maker’s conclusion is that the Claimant, if returned to Pakistan, will avoid behaviour which would attract persecution, then the decision-maker must ask the question why that would be so. Many possibilities arise. The individual may genuinely wish to live quietly, and would do so whether or not repression existed in relation to the expression of his or her Ahmadi faith. The individual may have mixed motives for such behaviour. If such a quiet expression or manifestation of genuine Ahmadi belief is merely the result of established cultural norms or social pressures, then it is unlikely there will be a basis for asylum. However, if a material reason (and not necessarily the only reason) for such behaviour will be to avoid persecution, then it is likely that the Claimant will have a valid claim for asylum. There is no requirement that public expression of Ahmadi religious faith, of a kind which is likely to attract persecution, should be of “particular importance” to the Claimant. Such a requirement is inconsistent with the test as laid down in HJ (Iran). To that extent, the guidance given in the body of MN (Ahmadis) Pakistan CG and in the headnote is misleading and should not be followed.

6 March 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Topic(s): Ahmadis - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) | Countries: Pakistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

KV (Sri Lanka) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)

6 March 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Supreme Court | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Torture | Countries: Sri Lanka - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Sentenza n. 4890 del 19/02/2019

The legislation introduced with the d.l. n. 113 of 2018, converted into l. n. 132 of 2018, in the part in which it modified the pre-existing regulation of the residence permit for humanitarian reasons dictated by art. 5, paragraph 6, of the legislative decree n. 286 of 1998 and other consequential provisions, replacing it with the provision of special cases of residence permits, does not apply in relation to applications for recognition of a residence permit for humanitarian reasons proposed before entry into force (October 5, 2018) of the new law, which will therefore be scrutinized on the basis of the legislation existing at the time of their presentation.

1 March 2019 | Judicial Body: Italy: Italian Supreme Court (Corte Suprema di Cassazione) | Topic(s): Humanitarian protection (including tolerated stay) - Immigration law - Right to seek asylum

R (Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants) (Claimant) - and - Secretary of State for the Home Department (Defendant) - and – (1) Residential Landlords Association (2) Equality and Human Rights Commission (3) Liberty (Intervenors)

i) an Order pursuant to s.4 Human Rights Act 1998 declaring that sections 20-37 of the Immigration Act 2014 are incompatible with Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR; and 56 ii) An Order declaring that a decision by the Defendant to commence the Scheme represented by sections 20-37 of the Immigration Act 2014 in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland without further evaluation of its efficacy and discriminatory impact would be irrational and would constitute a breach of s. 149 Equality Act 2010.

1 March 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales) | Topic(s): Discrimination based on race, nationality, ethnicity - Housing, land and property rights (HLP) - Illegal immigrants / Undocumented migrants - Right to family life | Countries: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Khan c. France (application no. 12267/16)

violation of article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment).

28 February 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Refugee camps - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Afghanistan - France - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

H.A. et autres c. Grece (application no. 19951/16)

The case concerns the arrest of the applicants, nine unaccompanied minors, and their placement in different police stations in northern Greece and in the Diavata centre. The Court found violations of articles 3 on the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment (no violation on living conditions), violation of article 13 on the right to an effective remedy and a violation of article 5 (1) and (4) on the right to liberty and security, right to a speedy decision on the lawfulness of a detention measure.

28 February 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Effective remedy - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions - Right to liberty and security - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Greece - Iraq - Morocco - Syrian Arab Republic

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL CAMPOS SÁNCHEZ-BORDONA delivered on 26 February 2019(1) Case C‑129/18 SM v Entry Clearance Officer, UK Visa Section

I suggest that the Court of Justice should reply to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the following terms: (1) Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC is to be interpreted as meaning that a child cannot be classed as a ‘direct descendant’ of a Union citizen where the child is only in the legal guardianship of that Union citizen under the institution of recueil legal (kafala) that applies in the Republic of Algeria. That child may, however, fall within the category of ‘other family members’ if the other requirements are satisfied and following completion of the procedure laid down in Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38, in which case the host Member State must facilitate his or her entry and residence in that Member State in accordance with national legislation, having weighed the protection of family life and the defence of the child’s best interests. (2) Articles 27 and 35 of Directive 2004/38 can be applied in any of the situations referred to in that directive where grounds of public policy, public security or public health apply, and in the event of abuse of rights or fraud. (3) In applying Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38, the authorities of the host Member State may enquire into whether sufficient regard was had, in the procedure for awarding guardianship or custody, to the best interests of the child.

26 February 2019 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) | Topic(s): Adoption - Family reunification | Countries: Algeria - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

BVerfG, Beschluss der 1. Kammer des Zweiten Senats

25 February 2019 | Judicial Body: Germany: Bundesverfassungsgericht | Topic(s): Effective remedy - Manifestly unfounded / Clearly abusive claims | Countries: Germany - Sudan

State Secretary for Ministry and Justice v. X

general situation of Gulen movement and whether this groups runs a real risk of treatment in violation of article 3 ECHR

13 February 2019 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: Council of State (Raad van State) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Coup d'état | Countries: Netherlands - Turkey

Search Refworld