On 28 May 2020, Advocate General Szpunar delivered his opinion in case C-233/19, concerning the interpretation of Directive 2008/115 in relation to the suspensive effect of an appeal against a decision ordering a third coun
On 27 May 2020, the Dutch Council of State delivered its judgment (Case No. 201906353/V3) on the decision to transfer an unaccompanied child to Sweden so she may be reunited with her brother in Sweden without an examination of the best interests of the child.
On 25 May 2020, the Tribunal of Genoa published its judgment concerning the recognition of subsidiary protection to a Senegalese citizen on the basis of the real risk of torture and inhuman treatment as a result of his activism for the promotion of children’s rights in traditional Quranic schools Daarra.
On 22 May 2020, the Human Rights Committee published its views in J.I. v. Sweden (CCPR/C/128/D/3032/2017) concerning the decision to deport a Christian to Afghanistan.
On 14 May 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union published its judgment in the joined cases C-924/19 and 925/19 concerning, inter alia, the accommodation of asylum seekers in the Röszke transit zone at the Hungarian-Serbian border and the grounds of inadmissibility for asylum applications.
On 13 May 2020, the Italian Supreme Administrative Court published its decision following the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ refusal to grant ASGI (Associazione Studi Giuridici Immigrazione) access to the IOM Annual and Financial projects in Libya funded by the Italian government.
On 12 May 2020, the European Court of Human Rights published its decision on the case Sudita Keita v. Hungary (Application No. 42321/15) concerning a stateless individual’s protracted difficulty to regularise their status in Hungary.
On 5 May 2020, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights published its decision declaring the case of M.N and Others v Belgium (Application No. 3599/18) to be inadmissible.
On 21 April 2020, the Court of the Hague published its decision in Case NL20.6494 in which the Immigration and Naturalisation Office applied for suspensive effect to suspend the time limit for a Dublin transfer.
The Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats’s-Hertogenbosch (the Netherlands) recently requested a preliminary ruling from the CJEU on the interpretation of new elements or findings in subsequent asylum applications (C-921/19). The following questions are referred:
