02/07/2026
|
IT: Council of State [Consiglio di Stato]
|
Judgment
|
No 5450
IT: Council of State [Consiglio di Stato]
The Association for Legal Studies on Immigration (ASGI) and Cittadinanzattiva APS challenged before the Regional Administrative Court (TAR) of Lazio the Decree of the Minister of the Interior of 4 March 2024, approving the standard tender specifications for the management and operation of Repatriation Detention Centres (CPRs). The Regional Administrative Court (TAR) of Lazio dismissed the application, and the associations subsequently appealed that judgment before the Council of State. By...
|
27/06/2026
|
IT: Civil Court [Tribunale]
|
Interim Measures
|
RG n. 8695/2026
IT: Civil Court [Tribunale]
The application of a Pakistani national was processed under the accelerated border procedure in accordance with Articles 43 and 45 of the Asylum Procedures Regulation. On 18 June 2026, the Prefect of Agrigento ordered that the applicant reside exclusively at the Villa Sikania reception centre in Siculiana (Agrigento) for a maximum period of 12 weeks, making access to reception conditions conditional upon residence at that facility, pursuant to Article 5-ter of...
|
25/06/2026
|
EU: Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU]
|
Judgment
|
C-182/26 PPU
EU: Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU]
The request for a preliminary ruling was made in the context of proceedings initiated by DL, a third-country national, who appealed against a detention decision adopted to enforce a return decision. Following the withdrawal of his asylum application, by decision of 3 February 2026, the Minister for Asylum and Migration issued a return decision in which it designated three potential countries of destination: Morocco, Algeria, and Libya, chosen based on information provided by DL since the...
|
25/06/2026
|
BE: Constitutional Court [Cour constitutionnelle]
|
Decision
|
78/2026
BE: Constitutional Court [Cour constitutionnelle]
The Law of 10 March 2024 established a procedure for admission to residence for stateless persons, challenged by several associations for the defence of third country nationals which claimed that several provisions of the law discriminated stateless people by comparison to the requirements for refugee applicants.
The court first held that the legislature is not required to treat stateless persons and refugees or persons enjoying...
|
23/06/2026
|
CoE: European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR]
|
Judgment
|
No 41855/23
CoE: European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR]
According to the ECtHR press release of 23 June 2026:
“The case concerns the national authorities' failure to take a decision on an application for family reunification lodged by a Burundian national who has been granted refugee status in Greece.
The applicant submits that he is unable to produce the supporting...
|
23/06/2026
|
CoE: European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR]
|
Judgment
|
31077/23
CoE: European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR]
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 the review of the application, the Greek Asylum Service summoned the applicant to an initial interview on 15 June 2021 and informed him that, based on the relevant legislation, he was required to provide the necessary supporting documents, duly certified and translated into...
|
23/06/2026
|
CoE: European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR]
|
Judgment
|
13250/23
CoE: European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR]
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 Bangladesh. During an initial and a supplementary interview taking place on 13 January and 2 February 2021, GAS indicated to the applicant that he had the obligation to provide, according to the relevant legislation, the necessary supporting...
|
22/06/2026
|
FI: Eastern Finland Regional Administrative Court [fi. hallinto-oikeus]
|
Judgment
|
1665/2026
FI: Eastern Finland Regional Administrative Court [fi. hallinto-oikeus]
An Iranian woman applied for international protection in Finland on grounds of having been victim of gender-based violence by her father in her country of origin. Relying in Sections 87a(1), 88c and 88d of the Aliens Act, the Finnish Immigration Service assessed that the conditions for international protection were not met and that the reasons for persecution were not demonstrated. The Finnish Immigration Service considered that women in Iran did not constitute a particular social group in...
|
10/06/2026
|
FR: National Court of Asylum [Cour Nationale du Droit d'Asile (CNDA)]
|
Judgment
|
25048470 C
FR: National Court of Asylum [Cour Nationale du Droit d'Asile (CNDA)]
M.P., from Haiti, requested international protection in France, arguing a fear of persecution or serious harm in the event of return to the country of origin, due to the security situation in Mirebalais, in the centre of Haiti. He found out about criminal groups in Mirebalais in September 2023 and in November 2023 he left the city with his wife and children. On 5 November 2023 he left Haiti and arrived in France (Martinique) on 31 August 2024.
By decision of 3 June 2025, the French...
|
09/06/2026
|
FR: National Court of Asylum [Cour Nationale du Droit d'Asile (CNDA)]
|
Judgment
|
25060110 C+
FR: National Court of Asylum [Cour Nationale du Droit d'Asile (CNDA)]
A woman from Mali requested international protection in France, arguing that she would be exposed, in the event of return to her country of origin, to persecution or serious harm by armed groups in her region on account of her ethnic origins and the security situation, without being able to benefit from the effective protection of the authorities. She claimed to be from the town of Bandiagara, in the region of the same name, and of Dogon ethnicity. She was aware of clashes between the Dogon...
|
08/06/2026
|
DE: Federal Administrative Court [Bundesverwaltungsgericht]
|
Judgment
|
1 C 26.25
DE: Federal Administrative Court [Bundesverwaltungsgericht]
The applicant, a Syrian national according to his own statements, requested subsidiary protection in Germany. He was expelled from Germany in June 2017. Subsequently, he repeatedly committed criminal offences and was convicted more than ten times, receiving fines as well as juvenile sentences and imprisonment. In October 2018, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) rejected his application for subsidiary protection.
The applicant appealed the decision before the...
|
The CJEU clarified that, in a situation in which applicants for international protection are subject to an enforceable decision on a transfer under the Dublin III Regulation, they must be guaranteed an adequate standard of living according to the recast Reception Conditions Directive, and they are entitled to material reception conditions which include, as a minimum, benefits in kind or equivalently, in the form of an allowance or vouchers, covering clothing, food, housing, personal care goods and a financial allowance intended to cover the person’s essential personal needs. The court further held that the concept of subsequent application is not applicable and cannot justify withdrawal or limitation of material reception conditions in such a situation.
04/06/2026
|
EU: Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU]
|
Judgment
|
C-621/24
EU: Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU]
The German Federal Social Court referred questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on whether national provisions reducing material reception conditions are compatible with the recast Reception Conditions Directive (RCD), specifically in the context of reception of an asylum applicant pending enforcement of a decision on a Dublin transfer.
By decision of 25 October 2021, F.B., an Afghan national,...
|
The CJEU ruled that, pursuant to Article 46(3) of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive, jointly with Article 47 of the EU Charter, a court of first instance, seized with an appeal against a decision rejecting an application for international protection, has the power to pronounce a binding ruling on the credibility of the account supporting that application, on the plausibility of the applicant's fear of persecution or the real risk of serious harm to the applicant if returned to their country of origin, and on the merits of the application. Moreover, it clarified that the expression ‘well-founded fear of being persecuted’ in Article 2(d) of the recast Qualification Directive refers to a situation where there is a reasonable likelihood that an applicant for international protection will be persecuted upon return to their country of origin and for such determination, national authorities must conduct an individual, specific and objective assessment.
04/06/2026
|
EU: Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU]
|
Judgment
|
C-440/25
EU: Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU]
The request for a preliminary ruling was submitted in the context of asylum applications lodged in the Netherlands by eight Iraqi nationals, members of the same family consisting in two parents and six children, several being girls. They cited three main grounds to substantiate their request for international protection: (i) issues with a neighbour, fear of a vendetta and the daughters being forced into...
|
04/06/2026
|
EU: Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU]
|
Judgment
|
C-198/25
EU: Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU]
The request for a preliminary ruling was submitted in the context of an appeal lodged by a Pakistani national against the negative decision on his asylum application issued by the Minister for Asylum and Migration. Although the Minister considered the applicant's account to be largely credible, it found that he had not been treated as an apostate and that,...
|
28/05/2026
|
DE: Higher Administrative Court (Oberverwaltungsgericht/Verwaltungsgerichtshöf)
|
Judgment
|
OVG 12 B 7/24
DE: Higher Administrative Court (Oberverwaltungsgericht/Verwaltungsgerichtshöf)
A Russian national born in 2004 was granted subsidiary protection by the Administrative Court of Berlin, which found that there was a real likelihood that he would be unable to resist pressure to enlist as a so-called 'contract soldier'. In this position, he would face deployment in Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine and, as a consequence, a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, including the danger of being killed, injured, or compelled to participate in violations of...
|
 | Loading… |
     |