• 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

Netherlands: Council of State rules that detention under Dublin III Regulation is unlawful if applicant is not given the opportunity to be heard

Wednesday, May 2, 2018

On 2 May 2018, the Dutch Council of State ruled against the State Secretary for Justice and Security and upheld the ruling of the District Court of The Hague in finding that applicants under the Dublin III Regulation cannot be detained prior to being given the opportunity to be heard.

CJEU Judgment: Case C-353/16 MP, 24 April 2018

Tuesday, April 24, 2018

On 24 April 2018, the CJEU ruled in case C-353/16 MP concerning the preliminary questions referred by the UK Supreme Court on the scope of the subsidiary protection under the Qualification Directive, particularly for victims of torture.

The CJEU found that, under EU law, the fact that a per

CJEU Judgment: Case C-82/16 K.A. and others, 8 May 2018

Tuesday, May 8, 2018

On 8 May 2018, the CJEU ruled in case C-82/16 K.A.

Latest Cases

Country of Decision: Italy , Country of Applicant: Unknown , Keywords: Competenza per l'esame di una domanda di asilo, Condizioni di accoglienza, Trasferimento su base Dublino , Date of Decision: 07-07-2016

È illegale trasferire un richiedente asilo ai sensi del regolamento di Dublino in un paese, in questo caso la Bulgaria, dove le condizioni di accoglienza sono in conflitto con l'articolo 4 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'UE.

Country of Decision: Italy , Country of Applicant: Unknown , Keywords: Diritto di rimanere nell'attesa di una decisione (effetto sospensivo), Garanzie procedurali, Trasferimento su base Dublino , Date of Decision: 27-09-2016

Le carenze sistemiche nella procedura di asilo e di accoglienza in Ungheria sono tali da impedire il trasferimento previsto dal regolamento di Dublino sulla base dell’articolo 3 del predetto regolamento.

La motivazione della sentenza deve essere esaustiva e non può basarsi su un'unica fonte, qualora altre siano disponibili.

Country of Decision: Italy , Country of Applicant: Unknown , Keywords: Accesso effettivo alle procedure, Obbligo di motivare, Trattenimento , Date of Decision: 09-04-2015

Qualora la Questura desideri prorogare il provvedimento di trattenimento presso un Centro di permanenza temporanea è necessario che al ricorrente sia garantito il rispetto del principio di contraddittorio.

Nel caso in cui il ricorrente sollevi un’eccezione in merito alla violazione del suo diritto al contradditorio, è necessario motivare circa le ragioni che ostano al suddetto accoglimento.

In caso contrario, il provvedimento di trattenimento è nullo.

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).