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...

28/08/2026

PT: In a preventive review of the amendments incorporating the Pact on Migration and Asylum into Portuguese law, the Constitutional Court upheld all the challenged provisions. The court clarified the requirements for the detention of minors; upheld the detention time limits as proportionate; clarified that reception arrangements during screening do not necessarily amount to detention, whereas placement in premises under the border procedure does and consequently requires judicial review; and held that the lack of automatic suspensive effect of appeals against asylum decisions does not breach the principle of non-refoulement insofar as interim measures against the enforcement of removal can be requested.

The President of the Republic requested a preventive review of the constitutionality of several amendments introduced by Decree No 105/XVII of the Assembly of the...

03/06/2026

LT: The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the annulment of a decision concerning a female vulnerable applicant who had claimed to be an unaccompanied minor, but for which the age assessment determined that she was an adult. The Supreme Administrative Court held that special procedural guarantees were not applied when she had been interviewed by male officer and interpreters, and considered that her birth certificate should be assessed as part of the evidence.

A female applicant claimed to be an unaccompanied minor. She submitted a copy of her birth certificate to the reception centre where she had been residing. An age assessment determined that she was an adult and her biological age fell within an interval very close to the age stated by the applicant. Two special needs and vulnerability assessments determined that the applicant was a vulnerable person. In the administrative procedure, a male officer of the Migration Department of the Ministry of the Interior interviewed the applicant, with the assistance of two male interpreters. By decision of 29 January 2026, the Migration Department refused to grant the applicant international protection. By judgment of 30...

29/05/2026

SK: The Administrative Court in Košice annulled, for the second time, the rejection of international protection for a Colombian applicant who refused to allow the FARC to recruit his minor son. The court held that the applicant’s and his son’s asylum stories had to be assessed together, that the refusal could lead the group to impute a political opinion to the applicant, and that the Ministry had failed to take into account the son’s status as a minor and to properly examine whether the applicant would have access to effective internal protection. The court also recalled that, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2026/464, the designation of a country as a safe country of origin does not dispense with the need to conduct an individual examination. Regarding subsidiary protection, the court held that internal armed conflict continued in Colombia and that the Ministry had failed to take into account the applicant’s heightened individual risk arising from his refusal to cooperate with the FARC.

A. B. C. D., a national of Colombia, claimed that he and his wife had been extorted by an armed group in Colombia, which demanded “war tax” payments and threatened to kill their minor...