Last Updated: Friday, 16 November 2018, 12:47 GMT
Latest Refworld Updates for Afghanistan RSS feed

Afghanistan - flag Afghanistan

Filter:
Showing 1-10 of 8,134 results
case C-662/17

On 18 October, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment on a preliminary reference submitted by the Slovenian Supreme Court, on the difference between refugee and subsidiary protection statuses. The need for a preliminary ruling arose in the context of asylum proceedings, where a minor national of Afghanistan was granted subsidiary protection status, following several unsuccessful legal challenges. When the issue was brought before the Supreme Court of Slovenia, the domestic judges decided to refer a question to the CJEU regarding the admissibility of the applicant’s appeal against his subsidiary protection status in the context of sufficient interest, according to Article 46 (2) of Directive 2013/32/EU. The question was centred on the difference in cessation and duration requirements of the two statuses, as well as the ancillary rights thereof. The Court first noted that the recitals of Directive 2011/95/EU indicate that EU legislators intended to establish an integral framework for all beneficiaries of international protection, save for objectively necessary exceptions for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status. After analysing the content of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Court stated that this article sets a requirement for a restrictive interpretation of any exception from the right to an effective remedy before a court, such as the one introduced by the aforementioned article of Directive 2013/32/EU. As such, for a subsidiary protection beneficiary’s action to be deemed inadmissible due to lack of sufficient interest, the rights and benefits granted must indeed be the same as those the applicant would enjoy if they held refugee status, even if the difference only encompasses ancillary rights. Moreover, a difference between the duration of the two statuses has to be regarded as difference in rights and benefits that justifies an admissible legal challenge. Lastly, any relevant assessment on the existence of different rights and benefits for international protection beneficiaries should not depend on the appellant’s individual situation, but rather on an overall assessment of national legislation. According to the Court’s restrictive interpretation, this is dictated by the text of Article 46 (2), as well as the need for the predictability of this legal provision, which would vary unacceptably according to each applicant’s personal circumstances. ELENA Weekly Legal Update - 19 October 2018

18 October 2018 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Decision on admissibility - Effective remedy | Countries: Afghanistan - Slovenia

The Queen on the application of:1) Hemmati; 2)Khalili;3) Abdulkadir; 4) Mohammed (Appellants) - and - The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) and Between The Queen on the application of SS (Respondent) -and- The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant)

The principal issues in the appeals concern the meaning and effect of Article 2(n) and Article 28 of Dublin III ("Article 2(n)" and "Article 28", respectively), which relate to the detention of an individual for the purpose of transfer to another Member State under that Regulation. Mr Hemmati and Mr Khalili also raise a distinct issue regarding whether Garnham J was right to hold that their detention was lawful by application of the usual principles of domestic law first adumbrated in Re Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704 and rehearsed in later authorities such as R (I) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 888 and Lumba v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] 1 AC 245 ("the Hardial Singh principles").

4 October 2018 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria - Bulgaria - Iran, Islamic Republic of - Iraq - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The Researcher, October 2018

October 2018 | Publisher: Ireland: Refugee Documentation Centre | Document type: Case Law Compilations/Analyses

Under threat, Kabul's Hazara make call to arms

20 September 2018 | Publisher: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty | Document type: Country News

2017 Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor - Afghanistan

20 September 2018 | Publisher: United States Department of Labor | Document type: Annual Reports

Country Reports on Terrorism 2017 - Afghanistan

19 September 2018 | Publisher: United States Department of State | Document type: Annual Reports

Afghanistan's Shi'a brace for more attacks on Ashura holiday

19 September 2018 | Publisher: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty | Document type: Country News

Country Reports on Terrorism 2017 - Foreign Terrorist Organizations: Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan

19 September 2018 | Publisher: United States Department of State | Document type: Annual Reports

Country Reports on Terrorism 2017 - Foreign Terrorist Organizations: Lashkar e-Tayyiba

19 September 2018 | Publisher: United States Department of State | Document type: Annual Reports

Country Reports on Terrorism 2017 - Foreign Terrorist Organizations: Jundallah

19 September 2018 | Publisher: United States Department of State | Document type: Annual Reports

Search Refworld