The CJEU clarified that Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that any Member State may decide to examine an application for international protection submitted to it, including when the Member State responsible for examining that application has been designated pursuant to Article 3(2) first subparagraph of that Regulation.

DE: The Higher Administrative Court of Hesse overturned the lower court’s judgment granting subsidiary protection to an Afghan national on the basis of an internal armed conflict and found that young, healthy, employable male Afghan nationals who have a family network in Afghanistan are not subject to a prohibition of removal on account of the humanitarian conditions there.

AT: The Regional Administrative Court of Tyrol referred questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Art 31 of the Qualification Regulation, concerning the limitation of social assistance benefits for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to the level of basic care support. The court also seeks clarification as to which extent subsistence benefits must be granted provisionally during administrative court proceedings to avert an acute risk to the best interests of the child.

The ECHR found no violation of Article 8 of the European Convention in a case concerning the Dutch authorities’ refusal to allow family reunification of the applicants’ five minor children, born of his polygamous marriages in Yemen. It found that the Dutch authorities struck a fait balance between the applicant’s interest and the State’s immigration policy, underlying that public order takes precedence over considerations of family ties when recognition to polygamous marriages conflicts with its own legal order.

The ECtHR found Italy in violation of Article 5 of the ECHR for the detention of an unaccompanied minor in the absence of a clear and accessible legal basis for a period of 2 months and a half. However, it did not find a violation of Article 3 of the Convention because the alleged poor conditions did not reach the threshold of severity required to constitute inhuman or degrading treatment. 

CZ: The Supreme Administrative Court ordered the re-examination of the application lodged by a Senegalese woman, who claimed to have survived domestic violence and abuse as a child and feared gender-based persecution in the form of female genital mutilation (FGM) and forced marriage. The court recalled that the Asylum Act had incompletely transposed the recast APD criteria for designating safe countries of origin and held that Senegal had been wrongly designated as a safe country of origin. The Ministry and the regional court had failed to properly examine whether Senegal could provide effective protection to the applicant, as required by the recast QD, and whether internal protection alternative was possible and realistic in her individual circumstances. The applicant’s need for special procedural guarantees had not been assessed, and the authorities should have provided of their own motion a female interviewer. With reference to her credibility and disclosure of sexual orientation later in the proceedings, the court held that the fact that she had discussed domestic violence, FGM and forced marriage in the presence of male staff did not mean that she would also have been able to disclose her sexual orientation earlier.

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.

DE: The Federal Administrative Court submitted a request before the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on whether the recast Asylum Procedures Directive and the Return Directive preclude national legislation which provides that there is no need to issue a new return decision when a third-country national submitted an inadmissible asylum subsequent application after complying with the obligation to leave for their country of origin following the rejection of the first application for international protection.

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.

CH: The Federal Administrative Court established that removal to Afghanistan remains, in principle, unreasonable, but may exceptionally be considered reasonable, without any particular geographical restriction, if particularly favourable individual circumstances cumulatively exist. These include adult men who are alone in Switzerland, are in good health, have been socialised in Afghanistan, and have a social or family network in the country capable of supporting their reintegration and ensuring access to adequate accommodation and basic subsistence, taking into account obligations to support other family members upon return, financial support from family members abroad, education and professional experience, and whether their ethnicity is predominant in the region of return.

IT: The Tribunal of Palermo ruled that the Territorial Commission of Palermo unlawfully applied the accelerated procedure under Article 42(1)(j) of the APR because it relied solely on Eurostat data showing a recognition rate of 20% or lower for applicants from Tunisia, without assessing whether the applicant’s individual circumstances and protection needs rendered that rate unrepresentative in his case.

DE: Following the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 22 July 2026, which invalidated the revocation of the declaration of admission for Afghan nationals, the Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg granted the applicants free legal aid for the first-instance proceedings, finding that their initial application for preliminary legal protection had sufficient prospects of success. The court also found that Germany must continue providing material support pending the outcome of the visa proceedings

NL: Citing the CJEU findings in TQ and KL, the District Court of the Hague, seated in Roermond, submitted two questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling, seeking clarification on: 1. the modality to assess the availability and then the adequacy of reception for an unaccompanied minor in the country of return and 2. the manner in which the best interests of the child must be assessed when adopting a return decision pursuant to the Return Directive, in order to be compatible with Article 24(2) of the EU Charter, and whether such assessment must be conducted independently and individually, in accordance with the General Comments of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.

IT: The Tribunal of Trieste found that the accelerated border procedure governed by Articles 42(1)(j) and 45(1) of the Asylum Procedures Regulation (APR) could not be applied, as the decree of the Minister of the Interior identifying the border and transit zones where that procedure could be carried out had not yet been adopted.

CY: The International Protection Administrative Court (IPAC) granted subsidiary protection to an Iranian applicant from Tehran based on a real risk of a threat to his life or person due to indiscriminate violence on account of mere presence in Tehran, based on the circumstances reported by updated country of origin information (COI) concerning the conflict in Iran.