Ahmedbekova v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite

Subject Matter

EUROPEAN UNION — Immigration — Asylum — Several members of one family making applications for international protection — Proper approach to processing of such applications — Whether fact that applicant involved in bringing complaint against country of origin before European Court of Human Rights relevant factor in determining whether international protection to be granted — Parliament and Council Directive 2011/95/EU, arts 3, 4(3), 10, 12, 23(1) — Parliament and Council Directive 2013/32/EU, arts 31(2), 33(2)(e), 46(3)

(Case C-652/16); EU:C:2018:801; EU:C:2018:514; [2019] 1 WLR 2779; [2018] WLR(D) 515, ECJ

Legislation Considered

EU Enactments

Directive 2011/95/EU (Parliament and Council), arts 3, 4(3), 10, 12, 23(1)

Directive 2013/32/EU (Parliament and Council), arts 31(2), 33(2)(e), 46(3)

Cases Considered

Cases considered in: Ahmedbekova v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite (Case C-652/16); EU:C:2018:801; EU:C:2018:514; [2019] 1 WLR 2779; [2018] WLR(D) 515, ECJ

Cases Cited

Cases cited in: Ahmedbekova v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite (Case C-652/16); EU:C:2018:801; EU:C:2018:514; [2019] 1 WLR 2779; [2018] WLR(D) 515, ECJ

Alheto v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite (Case C-585/16); EU:C:2018:327; EU:C:2018:584; [2019] 1 WLR 1163; [2018] WLR(D) 477, ECJ

Allanazarova v Russia CE:ECHR:2017:0214JUD004672115

F v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal (Case C-473/16); EU:C:2018:36, ECJ

FG v Sweden CE:ECHR:2016:0323JUD004361111; 41 BHRC 595

Federal Republic of Germany v B (Joined cases C-57/09 and C-101/09); EU:C:2010:661; [2012] 1 WLR 1076; [2011] Imm AR 190, ECJ

Federal Republic of Germany v Y (Joined Cases C-71/11 and C-99/11); EU:C:2012:518; [2013] All ER (EC) 1144, ECJ

Fondul Proprietatea SA v Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA (Joined Cases C-556/15 and C-22/16) EU:C:2017:494, ECJ

JK v Sweden CE:ECHR:2016:0823JUD005916612; 64 EHRR 15

MSS v Belgium CE:ECHR:2011:0121JUD00306960; 53 EHRR 2

Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel v X (United Nations High Comr for Refugees intervening) (Joined Cases C-199/12 to C-201/12); EU:C:2013:720; [2014] QB 1111; [2014] 3 WLR 770; [2013] WLR (D) 427, ECJ

Mugenzi v France CE:ECHR:2014:0710JUD005270109

M’Bodj v Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-542/13); EU:C:2014:2452; [2015] 1 WLR 3059; [2015] All ER (EC) 123; [2014] WLR (D) 556, ECJ

Sheekh v The Netherlands CE:ECHR:2007:0111JUD000194804; 45 EHRR 50

Singh v Belgium CE:ECHR:2012:1002JUD003321011

Subsequent Consideration

Cases subsequently considering: Ahmedbekova v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite (Case C-652/16); EU:C:2018:801; EU:C:2018:514; [2019] 1 WLR 2779; [2018] WLR(D) 515, ECJ

Cases citing

Cases citing: Ahmedbekova v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite (Case C-652/16); EU:C:2018:801; EU:C:2018:514; [2019] 1 WLR 2779; [2018] WLR(D) 515, ECJ

AH and FN v Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl (Case C-608/22); (Joined Cases C-608/22 and C-609/22); EU:C:2024:828, ECJ

Bilali v Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl (Case C-720/17); EU:C:2019:448; [2019] 4 WLR 124; [2019] WLR(D) 299, ECJ

Commissaire général aux réfugiés and aux apatrides (Unité familiale) (Case C-614/22); EU:C:2023:903, ECJ

JS (Uganda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 1670; [2020] 1 WLR 43; [2019] WLR(D) 570, CA

LW v Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-91/20); EU:C:2021:898; [2022] 4 WLR 24; [2021] WLR(D) 572, ECJ

Migracijos departamentas (Motifs de persécution fondés sur des opinions politiques) (Case C-280/21); EU:C:2023:13, ECJ

Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Notion d’atteintes graves) (Case C-125/22); EU:C:2023:843, ECJ

Torubarov (Common policy on asylum and subsidiary protection - Judgment) (Case C-556/17); EU:C:2019:626, ECJ

XXX v Commissaire général aux réfugiés and aux apatrides (Unité familiale) (Case C-374/22); EU:C:2023:902, ECJ

Commentary

Free Movement
Strasbourg litigants not a “particular social group” under the Refugee Convention Case comment