Monitoring References to the Court of Justice of the European Union
Tag
5 case reports
Greece notifies asylum refusals by ordinary email and treats them as served 48 hours after sending, with the appeal deadline running from that moment. There is no record of when the email was received or opened. A Thessaloniki court asks whether that presumption is compatible with the right to an effective remedy — and what happens when the email went to spam.
A parent withheld information about who the father of their child is. Sweden asks whether the EU law principle against fraud allows a derived right of residence under Article 20 TFEU to be refused — a right that exists for the child's sake, not the parent's.
Sweden will not grant a derived right of residence under Article 20 TFEU unless the applicant's identity is established. But the right exists to stop a Union citizen child being forced out of the EU, and the child's dependency does not depend on paperwork. The Migration Court of Appeal asks.
The Return Directive defines return to a third country as one the person 'voluntarily decides to return' to. If that word governs the choice of destination, a State cannot send anyone to a safe third country they did not pick. The Dutch Council of State asks.
One authority withdraws international protection and finds no risk of ill-treatment. A second authority then orders removal. Must it examine that risk again from the beginning — and what happens to evidence the person could have produced earlier but did not? The Bremen administrative court asks.