EUAA Quarterly Overview of Asylum Case Law, Issue No 3/2026; detention review scope and Dublin transfer accommodations.

Quarterly Overview of Asylum Case Law, Issue No 3/2026

1 September 2026 Issue No 3

Quarterly Overview of Asylum Case Law Issue No 3/2026 September 2026

Neither the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) nor any person acting on behalf of the EUAA is responsible for the use that might be made of the information contained within this publication.

Cover photo: © iStock/limeart ID 1227193799 Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2026 PDF BZ-01-26-073-EN-N ISBN 978-92-9418-772-7 ISSN 2811-9606 doi 10.2847/8551078 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the EUAA copyright, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders.

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM 4 Table of contents

Court of Justice of the European Union ………………………………………………………………………… 7 Non-refoulement assessment in the judicial review of detention pending a return ………. 7 Full scope of judicial review is not limited by national procedural autonomy and well-founded fear must be reasonably likely …………………………………………………………………… 8 Applicants subject to a decision on a Dublin transfer are entitled at a minimum to accommodation, food, clothing and daily expense allowances …………………………………. 9 Referrals to the CJEU …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9 Belgium – Medical test mandated by a destination or transit country to enforce a return decision …………………………………………………………………………….. 9 Germany – Eligibility for temporary protection when Ukrainian nationals have resided in a third country for over 2 years prior to requesting protection in the EU …………………………………………………………………………………………. 10 Germany – ‘Expiry’ of a return order when the person actually returns to their country of origin and their subsequent application is dismissed as inadmissible …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 10 Greece – The right to an effective remedy when a negative decision is notified electronically without verification of access or the exact time of access ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 11 Netherlands – Relevance in the examination of an application for international protection of a favourable decision in another Member State and the evidence submitted therein ……………………………………………………… 11 Netherlands – Evaluating adequate care and the best interests of the child prior to issuing a return decision concerning an unaccompanied minor 12
European Court of Human Rights ………………………………………………………………………………. 12 Family reunification of refugees ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 12 Weighting the prospect of re-entry in assessing the impact of expulsion and an entry ban on the right to family life ……………………………………………………………………………… 14
Highlights from national courts ………………………………………………………………………………….. 15 EU Pact on Migration and Asylum ……………………………………………………………………………………. 15 Germany and the Netherlands – Transitional provisions of the Asylum and Migration Management Regulation (AMMR) ……………………………… 15 Italy and Lithuania – Application of the border and accelerated procedures ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 16 Italy and Croatia – Obligation to reside in a designated reception centre during border procedures ……………………………………………………………………. 16 Portugal – Constitutional review of the Pact’s provisions on the detention of children, screening and border procedures, and the absence of a suspensive effect for appeals …………………………………………………… 17

QUARTERLY OVERVIEW OF ASYLUM CASE LAW, ISSUE NO 3/2026 5 Access to the asylum procedure………………………………………………………………………………………. 18 Spain – Pushbacks (rechazo en frontera) in the North African exclaves of Ceuta and Melilla …………………………………………………………………………. 18 Hungary – Authorities must refer a case to the asylum authority upon declaration of intent to apply for international protection during a removal ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 18 Administrative procedure ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19 Belgium – Compliance with data protection regulations and the right to respect for private life when conducting remote interviews ……………………. 19 Assessment of applications ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 19 Czechia, Germany, Norway and Slovakia – Russia: LGBTIQ applicants, political opinion and draft evasion ………………………………………………………………….. 19 France and Czechia – Senegal: Particular social group (forced marriage, FGM/C and LGBTIQ applicants) ………………………………………………………………………. 21 France – Yemen: Particular social group (LGBTIQ applicants) ……………………. 22 Switzerland – Afghanistan: Indiscriminate violence ……………………………………… 22 France – Haiti: Indiscriminate violence ………………………………………………………….. 22 Austria and Cyprus – Iran: Indiscriminate violence ………………………………………. 22 France – Mali: Indiscriminate violence …………………………………………………………… 23 Latvia – Pakistan: Indiscriminate violence …………………………………………………….. 23 Norway and Austria – Somalia: Indiscriminate violence ………………………………. 23 Latvia – Sudan: Indiscriminate violence ………………………………………………………… 24 Bulgaria and Spain – Syria: Indiscriminate violence ……………………………………. 24 Exclusion from international protection…………………………………………………………………………… 25 Germany – Exclusion from subsidiary protection due to repeated serious legal violations posing a danger to the community or national security …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 25 Reception…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 25 Belgium – Applicants granted international protection in another Member State retain entitlement to reception conditions while they have a right to remain ……………………………………………………………………………………… 25 Detention …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 26 Italy – Healthcare safeguards in detention centres ……………………………………… 26 Italy – Detention under the Italy-Albania Protocol ………………………………………… 26 Statelessness …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 27 Belgium and Spain – Access to the procedure and residence permits ……… 27 Rights of beneficiaries of international protection …………………………………………………………. 27 Netherlands and Spain – Revocation of international protection ……………….. 27 Temporary protection ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 28 Bulgaria – Right to reception conditions and family life for children granted temporary protection ………………………………………………………………………… 28

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM 6 Resettlement and humanitarian admission …………………………………………………………………….. 28 Germany – Constitutional review of the blanket revocation of humanitarian admission pledges for Afghan nationals holding a declaration of admission …………………………………………………………………………………. 28 Interplay of international protection with migration regimes ………………………………………… 29 Spain – Incompatibility of exceptional residence permits on integration grounds with international protection applicant status …………….. 29

Disclaimer The decisions and judgments presented in this edition of the “EUAA Quarterly Overview of Asylum Case Law, Issue No 3/2026” were pronounced from June to August 2026. The summaries cover the main elements of the court’s decision. The full judgment is the only authoritative and accurate document. Please refer to the original source for the authentic text. To reproduce or translate all or part of this quarterly overview in any format, and for information on introductory sessions to the Case Law Database or case law thematic presentations, please contact caselawdb@euaa.europa.eu To subscribe to the quarterly overview, click here

QUARTERLY OVERVIEW OF ASYLUM CASE LAW, ISSUE NO 3/2026 7

Court of Justice of the European Union

Four judgments which are relevant to international protection were pronounced by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in the last quarter. In addition, six referrals to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling were made by courts in Belgium, Germany, Greece and the Netherlands. Non-refoulement assessment in the judicial review of detention pending a return In DL v Minister van Asiel en Migratie [Hardeker] (C-182/26 PPU, 25 June 2026), the CJEU clarified that, in order to ensure the implementation of an effective removal policy, a return decision may identify several potential countries of destination, provided that it gives reasons of fact and law for considering each of them. The CJEU held that the detention of third-country nationals who do not cooperate with proceedings, including by hampering the determination of the country of destination, is permitted under Article 15(1)(b) of the Return Directive. Nonetheless, compliance with the principle of non-refoulement must be assessed in respect of all countries mentioned in the return decision. If the return decision does not contain such an assessment, the court reviewing the lawfulness of detention must examine ex nunc the risk of refoulement in all the countries mentioned in the return decision. That assessment concerns the lawfulness of the detention and is autonomous from that of the return decision, for whi