This case primarily concerns NB and her disabled minor son AB as well as her husband and other children, who are UNRWA-registered stateless Palestinians. Having previously resided in the Al Bass refugee camp in Lebanon, they arrived in the United Kingdom in 2015 and are seeking refugee status on the basis of Article 1(D) of the Geneva Convention. The Court considers whether they qualify to be granted ipso facto refugee status under Article 1(D) of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
This case concerns an Estonian national who renounced her nationality on the basis of an assurance that she would be granted Austrian nationality once proof of her renunciation was given. This assurance was revoked on the grounds that the applicant had committed road traffic offences, leaving the applicant stateless. In its judgment, the CJEU confirms that the situation at issue in the main proceedings falls within the ambit of EU law, and concluded that the authorities' decision to revoke an assurance to grant Austrian nationality was not compatible with the principle of proportionality.
The case concerned the refusal of the Bulgarian authorities to issue a birth certificate for the daughter of VMA and her wife as it the Bulgarian birth certificate could only recognise two parents of different sexes. The Bulgarian Administrative Court of the city of Sofia referred four questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union, in relation to balancing the child’s rights under EU law and the Member States’ prerogative to pursue specific social policy in relation to parentage.
Article 12(1)(a) of the Qualification Directive, which provides for an exclusion ground from refugee status where the applicant benefits from protection or assistance from, inter alia, UNRWA, constitutes a lex specialis, and therefore requires an assessment of whether the applicant receives such assistance or protection. In addition, a person registered with UNRWA who receives effective protection or assistance from that agency in a third country which is not the territory of her habitual residence but which forms part of the area of operations of that agency must be considered as enjoying sufficient protection in that third country in accordance with Article 35 of the Asylum Procedures Directive and therefore may not obtain asylum in the EU. The Court lays down the conditions under which the applicant may be considered as enjoying sufficient protection in that third country.
The case concerns a stateless person of Palestinian origin refused asylum in Hungary. The question answered by the CJEU concerned the circumstances in which a person is considered to be receiving "protection or assistance from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than [UNHCR]" within the meaning of Article 12(1)(a) of 2004 Qualification Directive, and may therefore be entitled to refugee status when that protection or assistance ceases. The CJEU held that a person receives such protection or assistance when that person has actually availed themselves of that protection or assistance, and not if they are entitled to but have not done so.
The case concerns the interpretation of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95/EU (hereafter recast Qualification Directive).
The applicant requested international protection in Germany as he no longer had access to protection from the UNRWA in Syria.
The national Court referred 5 questions to the CJEU to determine whether the applicant satisfied the conditions under Article 12(1) according to which, in essence, if the protection or assistance from UNWRA has ceased for any reason, without the position of persons receiving that protection or assistance being definitely settled, those persons are ipso facto entitled to the benefits of Directive 2011/95.
The case concerned the interpretation of Articles 2(f) and 15(c) of Directive 2011/95/EU on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection (hereafter recast Qualification Directive).
The national court referred two questions, concerning: i) the interpretation of article 15(c) in respect of how the degree of arbitrary violence in an armed conflict should be measured and ii) whether the assessment as to the existence of a serious and individual threat should be conducted on the basis of a comprehensive appraisal of all the circumstances of the individual case or should be based on determined factors.
The Court held that the interpretation of Article 15(c) must preclude the use of the threshold of minimum civilian casualties as the only determining factor but should be based on a comprehensive appraisal of all the circumstances of the individual case.
The case concerns the interpretation of Article 12(1)(a) of EU Directive 2004/83. The question before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) was how to determine who should have access to guarantees provided by Article 12, and what those guarantees entailed. The CJEU held that individuals who had received protection from a non-High Commissioner for Refugees (‘HCR’) UN organisation, but ceased to receive this protection due to a reason beyond their control, should automatically be granted refugee status by a Member State unless they fall into one of the exceptions of Article 12.
The Court held that it is not contrary to EU law for Member States to withdraw citizenship obtained by deception, even if the effect is to also withdraw citizenship of the Union, so long as the decision observes the principle of proportionality.
The judgment concerns a reference for a preliminary ruling regarding the interpretation of Article 15(4) to (6) of Directive 2008/115/EC. The applicant in the main proceedings before the Sofia City Administrative Court in Bulgaria, Mr. Said Kadzoev, is a stateless person of Chechen origin. The reference for a preliminary ruling concerned the interaction between detention under asylum law and removal detention and the question whether the former counts within the 18-months maximum period of removal detention under Article 15 (6) of Directive 2008/115. The Court gave clear guidance as to the differentiation between the two types of administrative detention and the different purposes that they serve. The Court also interpreted the concept of a (lack of) reasonable prospect of removal within the meaning of Article 15 (4) of Directive 2008/115, which is of particular relevance in cases of detention of stateless persons.