Uniformity of Refugee Status in EU law and Secondary Movements: Insights from QY v Germany and A. v Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Hamm
(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2025 10(1), 45-53 | Article | (Table of Contents) 1. Introduction. – 2. No uniform refugee status and no automatic recognition of positive decisions. – 3. Procedural obligation to take ‘full account’ of a positive decision. – 4...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
European Papers (www.europeanpapers.eu)
2025-05-01
|
| Series: | European Papers |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.europeanpapers.eu/e-journal/uniformity-refugee-status-eu-law-secondary-movements-insights-qy-germany-a-generalstaatsanwaltschaft-hamm |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | (Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2025 10(1), 45-53 | Article | (Table of Contents) 1. Introduction. – 2. No uniform refugee status and no automatic recognition of positive decisions. – 3. Procedural obligation to take ‘full account’ of a positive decision. – 4. The link between a positive decision on refugee status and the content of the status – 5. Conclusion. | (Abstract) In QY v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Effect of a decision granting refugee status) the Court of Justice held that Member State are not required under EU to automatically recognize the positive decision issued by another Member State. Such a positive decision does have some significance, but very far from being anything close to automatically binding as to the positive conclusion that the applicant is eligible for refugee status. In this article, after briefly describing the facts, I explain the Court’s arguments in QY and their justifications. I also make relevant comparative references to the new EU asylum regulations adopted in 2024 (i.e. the 2024 Qualification Regulation and the 2024 Procedures Regulation). More specifically, Section 2 explains that there is no uniform refugee status in the EU. Section 3 clarifies that in QY the Court reasoned in favour of procedural obligation upon Member States to take ‘full account’ of positive decisions made by other Member States. Finally, Section 4 explores the link between, on the one hand, the effects of positive decisions for Member States and, on the other, the content of the refugee status. To proceed with this exploration, A. v Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Hamm delivered on the same day as QY is taken into account. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2499-8249 |