EUAA Case Law Database

Latest news for users

Please fill in this survey to evaluate the EUAA Case Law Database and suggest improvements. We welcome your feedback!

The EUAA Asylum Case Law Grant is open for applications until 30 September 2026, 17:00hrs Brussels time. Do not miss this opportunity!

***Recent EUAA publications on asylum jurisprudence:

EUAA Quarterly Overview of Asylum Case Law, Issue 2/2026 for asylum judgments from March to May 2026. To receive the Quarterly by email, please subscribe here.
Jurisprudence related to Asylum Pronounced by the Court of Justice of the EU in 2025 (March 2026).
Jurisprudence related to the Dublin Procedure in 2025 (Feb 2026).

*** Second jurisprudential analysis under the EUAA Case Law Grant is published, drafted by Comillas Pontifical University on Jurisprudence on Asylum Pronounced by the European Court of Human Rights in 2024-2025 (Call EUBA-EUAA-2025-ASYLUMCASELAW), January 2026.

The EUAA Information and Analysis Sector can provide, upon request, online sessions on how to use the EUAA Case Law Database. We also provide presentations on the latest jurisprudence interpreting the Common European Asylum System. For more information, contact us at caselawdb@euaa.europa.eu

Please fill in this <a href="https&#58;//ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/EUAA-Case-Law-Database-Satisfaction-Survey">survey</a> to evaluate the EUAA Case Law Database and suggest improvements. We welcome your feedback!

&#160;

The <a href="https&#58;//ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topic-details/EUBA-EUAA-2026-ASYLUMCASELAW">EUAA Asylum Case Law Grant</a> is open for applications until&#160;30 September 2026, 17&#58;00hrs Brussels time. Do not miss this opportunity!

&#160;

***Recent EUAA&#160;publications on asylum jurisprudence&#58;&#160;

<ul>
	<li>
	EUAA <a href="/Newsletters/2026_EUAA_Quarterly_Overview_Asylum_Case_Law_Issue2_EN.pdf">Quarterly Overview of Asylum Case Law, Issue 2/2026</a>&#160;for asylum judgments from March to May 2026.&#160;To receive the Quarterly&#160;by email, please&#160;<a href="/pages/subscribe.aspx" target="_blank">subscribe here</a>.
	</li>
	<li>
	<a href="/Documents/Factsheet42_CJEU_jurisprudence_EN.pdf">Jurisprudence related to Asylum Pronounced by the Court of Justice of the EU in 2025</a> (March 2026).
	</li>
	<li>
	<a href="https&#58;//www.euaa.europa.eu/publications/jurisprudence-related-dublin-procedure-2025">Jurisprudence related to the Dublin Procedure in 2025</a> (Feb 2026).
	</li>
</ul>

&#160;

*** Second jurisprudential analysis under the EUAA Case Law Grant is published, drafted by Comillas Pontifical University on&#160;<a href="/Documents/2026_ECtHR_jurisprudence_asylum-EN.pdf">Jurisprudence on Asylum Pronounced by the European Court of Human Rights in 2024-2025</a> (Call EUBA-EUAA-2025-ASYLUMCASELAW), January 2026.

&#160;

The EUAA Information and Analysis Sector&#160;can provide, upon request, online sessions on&#160;how to use&#160;the EUAA Case Law Database. We also provide presentations on the latest jurisprudence interpreting the Common European Asylum System.&#160;For more information, contact us at&#160;caselawdb@euaa.europa.eu

Get our Quarterly Overview of Asylum Case Law

Click here to subscribe

Read our publications

Latest updates

07/07/2026

COE: The ECtHR ruled that Denmark did not violate Article 8 of the Convention by ordering the expulsion of a Syrian refugee who was sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment for 14 offences of money laundering. The court held that after the expiry of the re-entry ban, the applicant could apply for family reunification.

According to the ECtHR's press release, “the applicant, Mr Allabed, is a Syrian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Aarhus (Denmark). Mr Allabed entered Denmark in 2013 and was granted residence as a refugee. By a final Supreme Court judgment of 29 January 2025 he was convicted of, among other offences, money laundering and sentenced to two years and six months' imprisonment. His expulsion from Denmark was ordered with a six-year re-entry ban. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family...

23/06/2026

COE: The ECtHR ruled that there had been a violation of Article 8, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the ECHR, in a case concerning a Rohingya refugee from Myanmar because the Greek Asylum Service required that the applicant provide the required supporting documents, despite this being impossible due to his and his family's statelessness, and failed for 4 years to decide his application for family reunification. The court found that authorities failed to conduct an individualised assessment of whether the applicant's inability to submit those documents was justified.

A stateless Rohingya of Myanmar obtained refugee status in Greece on 19 April 2019. On 28 August 2019, he submitted a request for family reunification to the Greek Asylum Service (GAS) to reunite with his spouse and two minor children who were residing in...

23/06/2026

COE: The ECtHR ruled unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the ECHR, in a family reunification case concerning an Afghan refugee due to the Greek authorities’ requirement of document certification by the Greek consular office, which was rendered impossible in practice as the consular office did not issue such certifications owing to the situation in Afghanistan and the Greek authorities’ non-recognition of the Taliban regime. The ECtHR held that the Greek authorities failed to strike a fair balance between the applicant’s interest in family reunification and the interests of the State.

A.D., an Afghan national who obtained refugee status in Greece in 2018, requested family reunification with his spouse and five children, who were residing in Afghanistan. As part of...

18/08/2026

LT:

LT: In the first case on the application of the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum in Lithuania, the Supreme Administrative Court found no circumstances indicating that the border procedure had been applied without justification or should have been discontinued, nor did it find grounds for lifting the restriction imposed on the applicant’s freedom of movement. The court held that placement of the applicant in temporary accommodation with the possibility to leave the facility upon authorisation constituted a restriction of the freedom of movement inherent to the asylum border procedure and did not amount to detention.

According to the Supreme Administrative Court's press...

17/07/2026

The applicant, a national of the Russian Federation, applied for international protection in Slovakia, citing a fear of military conscription and deployment to the war against Ukraine, where he might die, as well as fear of persecution in...

15/07/2026

ES: ES: The National High Court refused to grant refugee status to an Armenian military officer who refused to participate in hostilities, holding that the punishment for evading military service did not amount to individualised persecution. In an ex nunc assessment of the circumstances, the court likewise rejected subsidiary protection, finding that the armed conflict was no longer ongoing.

R. and C., a married Armenian couple, arrived in Spain with their minor children on 14 August 2021 and applied for international protection on 26 August. They submitted that R. was a member of the Armenian government intelligence service, working in the military and research sectors, as well as in the judiciary. He was required to serve on the frontline during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, which he refused to do,...