• A third-country national or stateless person who is below the age of 18 at the time of his or her entry into the territory of a Member State and of the introduction of his or her asylum application in that State, but who, in the course of the asylum procedure, attains the age of majority and is thereafter granted refugee status must be regarded as a ‘minor’ for the purposes of the Family Reunification Directive.

     
  • This journal entry argues that EU third country agreements violate non-refoulement obligations as defined under international law based on a number of reasons. First, EU third country agreements violate Article 31(1) of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees; second when read purposively, violating Article 31(1) would trigger corresponding protection from refoulement, most notably when a violation of Article 31(1) may lead to rejection at the frontier; finally, third country agreements as a form of migration control to deter claimants from reaching the territories of a State, would be both a form of penalisation of refugees’ illegal presence as well as a violation of non-refoulement obligations.

  • The possibility to lodge an asylum application in practice is a prerequisite for the effective protection of those in need of international protection. If access to the asylum procedure is not guaranteed by the national authorities, asylum applicants cannot benefit from the guarantees afforded to those under the asylum procedure

  • Luxembourg is the 22nd country to be added to EDAL. The country profile page gives readers a summary of asylum law and procedures in Luxembourg and the case summary page provides the latest asylum case law from the Luxembourg Administrative Tribunal. 

  • In VC, R (On the Application Of) v SSHD, the Court of Appeal found that the lack of an automatic independent review of immigration detention put mentally ill detainees at a substantial disadvantage. The Court ruled that since mentally ill detainees might lack the ability to initiate a bail application, they are unjustifiably discriminated against.

Latest News


UK Court of Appeal: cessation decision is independent of an assessment of a risk of violation of Article 3 ECHR

Date: 
Wednesday, May 2, 2018

On 2 May 2018, the England and Wales Court of Appeal ruled in case MA (Somalia) v.

Netherlands: District Court of The Hague rules on obligation to provide reasons when Article 17 of the Dublin III Regulation is invoked

Date: 
Friday, April 20, 2018

On 20 April 2018, the District Court of The Hague, seated in Den Bosch, ruled in case NL18.5178 regarding a Syrian asylum applicant whose family was granted refugee status in the Netherlands. The applicant also applied for asylum in the Netherlands on a later stage, but his asylum application was considered inadmissible as Italy was regarded as the Member State responsible for his application.

Germany: Administrative Court of Dusseldorf quashes transfer of Syrian family to Romania

Date: 
Tuesday, May 8, 2018

On 8 May 2018, the Administrative Court of Dusseldorf ruled in case 8L5135/17.A concerning a Syrian woman and her three young children. The family received refugee status in Romania and subsequently reached Germany, where they also applied for asylum. On 21 May 2017, the German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees ordered their transfer to Romania.

Latest Cases


Country of Decision: Finland , Country of Applicant: Thailand , Keywords: OIkeus perheen yhtenäisyyteen, Perheen jäsen, Perheen yhdistyminen , Date of Decision: 30-12-2011

Oleskelulupaviranomainen ei myöntänyt oleskelulupaa perhesiteen perusteella, koska epäilivät ns. lumeavioliittoa. Asiassa oli kyse siitä, voitiinko oleskelulupahakemus perhesiteen perusteella hylätä maahantulosäännösten kiertämisen tavoittelun perusteella, kun oleskeluluvan muut edellytykset täyttyivät.

Country of Decision: Finland , Country of Applicant: Somalia , Keywords: Suojelusta poissulkeminen, Toissijainen suojelu , Date of Decision: 18-02-2014

Asiassa oli kyse siitä, voitiinko poissulkemislausekkeen perusteella jättää myöntämättä kansainvälistä suojelua henkilölle, jota epäiltiin törkeästä rikoksesta. Korkein hallinto-oikeus katsoi, että toissijainen suojelu voitiin kieltää henkilöltä, jota epäiltiin törkeästä raiskauksesta.

Country of Decision: Finland , Country of Applicant: Bulgaria, Iraq , Keywords: OIkeus perheen yhtenäisyyteen, Palaa, Vastuu hakemuksen käsittelystä , Date of Decision: 22-11-2013

Ulkomaalaislain 51 §:n mukaan Suomessa olevalle ulkomaalaiselle myönnetään tilapäinen oleskelulupa, jos häntä ei tilapäisestä terveydellisestä syystä voida palauttaa kotimaahansa tai pysyvään asuinmaahansa taikka hänen maasta poistamisensa ei ole tosiasiassa mahdollista.

Asiassa oli kyse siitä tarvitaanko ulkomaalaislain 51 § nojalla myönnettävän tilapäisen oleskeluluvan edellytysten tutkimista varten täytäntöönpanokelpoinen käännyttämispäätös vai tuleeko Maahanmuuttoviraston selvittää henkilön maasta poistamisen tosiasiallisia mahdollisuuksia ennen käännyttämispäätöksensä tekemistä.

About EDAL


The European Database of Asylum Law (EDAL) is an online database co-ordinated by the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and a compilation of summaries of refugee and asylum case law from the courts of 20 European states, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The summaries are published in English and in the relevant state’s national language.

For more information please see here.

If you are interested in contributing an article on a relevant subject to the EDAL blog or would like to inform us about an important national judgment, please kindly send an email to Amanda Taylor (ataylor@ecre.org) or Julia Zelvenska (jzelvenska@ecre.org).