Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content

​​​​

Latest news for users


The first edition of the EUAA Quarterly Overview of Asylum Case Law​ for 2024 was just published and it includes the most relevant asylum judgments pronounced by national and European courts from December 2023 to February 2024.

The next edition of the quarterly overview will be published on 15 June 2024.

To receive it by email, please subscribe here.


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



View All Cases

Case registrations are available chronologically in the Digest or through the 'Search Database'.

Search Database

Search in the EUAA Case Law Database.

New Case Registrations

All users may propose relevant case law by using the 'Submit New Case Law' function.


Latest Updates View all

13/03/2024

FR: The National Court of Asylum rejected the appeal lodged as third-party intervener by the father of a minor child against the decision by which the latter had been granted international protection and noted that allowing such an appeal would be contrary to the principle of confidentiality of an asylum application.

On 25 March 2022, the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) refused to grant refugee protection to a woman and her minor son from Belarus. On 30 December 2022, the National Court of Asylum (CNDA) annulled the OFPRA's decision and granted the applicants refugee status. In this case, the minor child’s father, through a third-party appeal, requested the CNDA to annul its previous decision by which it had granted both applicants refugee status. The father claimed that:

  • his ex-wife and son being recognised as refugees resulted from fraud,
  • his ex-wife voluntarily availed herself of the protection of the Belarusian authorities since she was granted refugee status, and that,
  • in the absence of proper concerns regarding his minor son, the relevant provisions of international law on the principle of family unity should not be applied.

The mother argued that the father was not in a position to make such a request and that his claims were unfounded. The OFPRA also put forward that the father's request regarding the decision concerning the mother was not founded, but that his request regarding the decision concerning his son was. The OFPRA added that the mother's arguments could not be regarded as filed in her son's name.

In its decision adopted in a Grand Chamber formation, the CNDA examined whether or not the father's appeal could be admitted. Noting, on the one hand, that the CNDA is an administrative jurisdiction and that administrative courts and tribunals may receive third-party appeals and, on the other hand, that the provisions regulating the activities of the CNDA provide that its decisions to grant protection may only be appealed by the OFPRA or the prosecution, the CNDA concluded that it had to reject the father's appeal, in line with the lex specialis doctrine. The court emphasised the court’s duty to guarantee the confidentiality of the information included in the asylum application, while noting that the investigation of a third party appeal deemed admissible involves the automatic communication of procedural documents which gave rise to the CNDA’s decision. The court thus noted that the investigation of the third-party appeal is fundamentally incompatible with the need to ensure the confidentiality of asylum requests and with the organisation of the CNDA.

Read more...
 
13/03/2024

FR: The National Court of Asylum provided subsidiary protection to an applicant from Haiti, ruling that the security situation in Port-au-Prince and in the Ouest and Artibonite departements, was such that mere presence in these areas would expose the applicant to a real risk of serious harm to his life or person.

The applicant, a Haitian national, submitted an application for international protection before the OFPRA, arguing that he qualified for protection on account of the general situation in Haiti and of his personal circumstances, in particular his health issues. The applicant stated that when gangs became aware that he was about to move to France with his wife, they demanded USD 60,000 from him and shot him, causing him to lose two fingers. He added that the security situation of indiscriminate violence in Haiti in general, and in the place where he would need to settle upon return, due to his family residing there, should be regarded as meeting the threshold triggering the application of Article 15(c) of the recast Qualification Directive (QD). The applicant also argued that he was especially facing a  serious and individual threat to his life or person in light of his vulnerability, including the fact that he was blind from one eye, missed two fingers and suffered from schizophrenia, for which his treatment was unavailable in Haiti. On 7 July 2023, the OFPRA rejected his application. The applicant appealed against this decision on 15 July 2023.

In his appeal, the applicant reiterated his initial claims. The NGO "ELENA France" supported these claims, arguing that the court should first consider granting Haitian nationals refugee status on the grounds of membership of a particular social group or political opinion, alternatively subsidiary protection because the security situation in Haiti was such as to trigger the application of Article 15(c) of the recast QD. The NGO added that the involvement of armed gangs in the situation reinforced the risk of exposure to torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. The OFPRA rejected the argument that the security situation in Haiti was such as to expose civilians to a real and individual threat to their life or person due to their mere presence in the area. The authorities further argued that the applicant did not establish the existence of personal circumstances, which could make him particularly vulnerable to inhumane or degrading treatment.

The court noted that the applicant did not put forward any claims that he would qualify for refugee status under the 1951 Refugee Convention. It went on to say that, in the absence of the applicant at the hearing, his declarations before the OFPRA were insufficient to establish the circumstances of the case. However, the CNDA added that it should nonetheless assess the security situation in Haiti. Based on available country-of-origin information, the CNDA found that the worsening of the economic and political crises in Haiti since 2018 led criminal groups to look for new resources and try to establish their control over greater parts of the territory and population, and that the assassination of the President in July 2021 further led to the creation of new armed gangs. Then, the court highlighted that, since the second half of 2022, these criminals had increasingly targeted civilians, as well as institutions, notably by occupying up to 80% of the capital city, Port-au-Prince, and other cities such as the one where the applicant's family resides. The court also observed that, in the course of 2023, the use of violence, including collective rape and destruction of infrastructure on a wide scale, had carried the number of victims to unprecedented levels, and that the humanitarian situation was equally worrisome, with the United Nations Integrated Office in Haiti (BINUH) describing it as a "major emergency", even after the provision of food assistance. Noting that the police was itself affected by these phenomena, and that the authorities were unable to address the gangs issues in the country, the CNDA considered that the confrontations between the police and the gangs should be characterised as an internal armed conflict. Therefore, the court concluded that the entire territory was facing indiscriminate violence, with its level in Port-au-Price and in the West and Artibonite departments being such that the applicant, by his mere presence there, faced a serious and individual threat to his life or person, thus triggering the application of Article 15(c) of the recast Qualification Directive.

The court annulled the OFPRA’s decision and granted the applicant subsidiary protection.

Read more...
 
Get our Quarterly Overview of Asylum Case Law
Click here to subscribe
Read our publications
See more

Resources

Judicial Institutions
Civil Society