Do the Challenges of LGBTQ Asylum Applicants Under Dublin Register With the European Court of Human Rights?

2020 ◽  
pp. 096466392094636
Author(s):  
Raoul Wieland ◽  
Edward J Alessi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
Dublin Regulation

Evidence suggests that Europe’s Dublin Regulation is increasing the precarity of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) asylum applicants. Dublin allocates responsibility for examining asylum claims between EU Member States. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) guides the obligations of States under Dublin. Increasingly, the ECtHR draws on the concept of vulnerability to frame the experiences of asylum seekers. Vulnerability purportedly functions for the ECtHR as a lens through which the harm experienced by asylum applicants is magnified, enabling it to better recognize human rights violations. Nevertheless, the ECtHR’s vulnerability lens may be distorted by hetero- and cisgender normativity. We explore some implications of the ECtHR’s assumptions for how the vulnerabilities of LGBTQ asylum seekers in Europe under Dublin register with the ECtHR. We suggest that the combined frameworks of intersectional invisibility and layers of vulnerability can improve the ECtHR’s capacity to understand how LGBTQ asylum applicants may be particularly vulnerable under Dublin.

scholarly journals EU ASYLUM SYSTEM IN AND AFTER THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC: DISCLOSING THE WEAKNESSES OF THE CURRENT RULES AND ASSESSING THE PROSPECTS OF THE NEW PACT ON MIGRATION AND ASYLUM

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bojana Čučković
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Current Phase ◽  
Member States ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Emergency Situations ◽  
Human Rights Standards ◽  
The Eu

The paper analyses the influence that the Covid-19 pandemic has had on the functioning of the European asylum system. The analysis is divided into three parts and addresses problematic issues associated with different stages of the pandemic. In the first part of the paper, the author outlines the asylum practices of EU Member States in the initial stage of the Covid-19 pandemic during which the pandemic was perceived as a state of emergency. By exploring the legal possibilities to derogate both from the EU asylum rules and international human rights standards, the author offers conclusions as regards limits of derogations and the legality of Member States’ practices, especially their failure to differentiate between rules that are susceptive of being derogated in emergency situations and those that are not. The second part of the paper analyses the current phase of the pandemic in which it is perceived as a 'new normal' and focuses on making the EU asylum system immune to Covid-19 influence to the greatest extent possible and in line with relevant EU and human rights rules. The author insists on the vulnerability as an inherent feature of persons in need of international protection and researches upon the relationship between the two competing interests involved – protection of asylum seekers and ensuring public health as a legitimate reason for restricting certain asylum seekers’ rights. The final part of the paper analyses the prospects of the future EU asylum system, as announced by the New Pact on Migration and Asylum in September 2020, to adapt to the exigencies of both the current Covid-19 crisis and pandemics that are yet to come. With an exclusive focus on referral to Covid-19 and provisions relevant for the current and future pandemics, the author criticizes several solutions included in the instruments that make up the Pact. It is concluded that the Pact failed to offer solutions for problems experienced during the Covid-19 pandemic and that, under the pretext of public health, it prioritizes the interests of Member States over the interests of applicants for international protection.

The (Rebuttable) Presumption of the European Union Member States as ‘Safe Countries’ under the Dublin Regulation

2012 ◽  
pp. 240-255
Author(s):  
Cristina Contartese
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
Dublin Regulation ◽  
Effective Remedy ◽  
European Union Member States ◽  
The Eu

The purpose of this chapter is to analyze a particular aspect of the so-called Dublin Regulation, whose aim is to determine the European Union (EU) Member State responsible for examining an asylum application, that is, the presumption that the EU Member States are “safe countries.” Although the notion of “safe country” is on the base of the Dublin Regulation functioning mechanism, as it implies that any EU Member States can transfer an asylum seeker to any other EU country which is responsible, the authors contend that the safety of an EU Member State can be given as presumed for the purpose of asylum seekers. The analysis of the present work starts, firstly, with the examination of the notion of “safe country” under the Dublin Regulation. In the second part, relying on the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECHR) case-law, it will be discussed to what extent the Court of Strasbourg clarifies the notion of “safe countries” and the test it applies to it. Finally, the Commission’s proposal for a recasting of the Dublin Regulation will be analysed with the aim of foresee possible future developments of the EU law mechanisms to rebut such a presumption as applied to the EU Member States. It will emerge that in order to assess the safety of an EU Member State, attention has to be given to the prohibition of both direct and indirect refoulement as well as to the effective remedy at the EU Member State’s domestic level.

scholarly journals Human Rights in the EU Return Policy: The Case of the EU-Albania Relations

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sokol Dedja
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Return Policy ◽  
The Third ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Effectiveness And Efficiency ◽  
Return Process ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The examination of the approach of the EU return policy to Albania – a country to which the EU returns about one fifth of the total number of the third country nationals removed – demonstrates that the predominant focus of the EU return policy on the effectiveness and efficiency of returns has left little room for safeguarding the human rights of the returnees. The article finds that the return procedures of the readmission agreement that should guarantee the protection of human rights in the return process are not observed by the EU member states. There are insufficient guarantees that the reception and possible detention of returnees in Albania will offer a dignified treatment. Moreover, the readmission agreement opens the way for the return of asylum seekers to Albania in line with the ‘safe third country’ practice in the absence of conditions that ensure effective access to fair and efficient asylum procedures and protection in the country.

KILLING TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE? THE COURT OF JUSTICE'S OPINION ON THE EU'S ACCESSION TO THE ECHR

2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Nanopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Political Agenda ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

ACCESSION to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has long been on the EU's political agenda. The EU's membership of the ECHR is not only seen as symbolically significant, but is also aimed at filling an important gap in the enforceability of human rights across Europe. At present, the EU cannot be brought before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and, while all EU Member States are parties to the ECHR, as long as the EU protects fundamental rights to a standard equivalent to that required under the ECHR, Member States cannot be held responsible for alleged violations of the Convention resulting from EU law either (Bosphorus v Ireland (2006) 42 E.H.R.R. 1).

scholarly journals On Inter-State Litigation and Armed Conflict Cases in Strasbourg

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-48
Author(s):  
Philip Leach
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Regular Feature ◽  
Member States ◽  
Related Individual ◽  
European Court ◽  
Inter State

Abstract The reluctance of Council of Europe member states to challenge each other at the bar of Europe, through the litigation of inter-state cases at the European Court, used to be a regular feature of the Strasbourg system. However, conflicts of different kinds in eastern Europe have led to a surge of such cases in recent years, as well as the introduction of thousands of related individual applications. The serious challenges presented, in particular by conflict-related cases, have led some commentators to question whether they can feasibly remain part of the Strasbourg process. For others, the focus should rather be on how such cases can be more effectively processed and assessed. This article emphasises the significance of both inter-state cases in general, and of cases arising from armed conflict (including individual applications): their political and legal importance; their centrality to the European human rights system; and how vital they are for individual victims of human rights violations. It analyses a number of controversial or challenging aspects of the adjudication of these cases, and puts forward some proposals for reform.

scholarly journals The Right to Asylum and the Principle of Non- Refoulement Under the European Convention on Human Rights

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (28) ◽  
pp. 108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jelena Ristik
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Dual Systems ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
European Court ◽  
Asylum Law ◽  
Complementary Role ◽  
The Right

The European Convention on Human Rights does not contain any explicit reference to the right to asylum. However, the European Court of Human Rights has provided protection of asylum seekers mainly through interpretation of Article 3 of the Convention. Moreover, even if there is no specific mention of non-refoulement in this Article, the Court has interpreted it to include the prohibition of refoulement. Today, the ECHR is one of the most important juridical instruments for protection of asylum seekers throughout Europe. The main reason for this is that the principle of nonrefoulement under the Convention extends to inhuman and degrading behavior. This paper has placed its focus on the applicability of the ECHR to asylum cases, particularly the development and treatment of the principle of non-refoulement, as a form of complementary protection to those seeking asylum. This will be elaborated mainly through analysis of the jurisprudence of the ECtHR. It will be shown that the principle of non-refoulement under the ECHR, as a barrier to removal, plays a significant complementary role regarding the protection of asylum seekers. It will also be shown that the jurisprudence of the ECtHR has important relevance to EU asylum law and policy. In this sense, a comparison between EU law and ECHR protection standards for asylum seekers will be elaborated as well. Finally, it will be concluded that EU Member States are faced with dual systems providing protection to asylum seekers, and a possible solution will be suggested in order to overcome this situation.

scholarly journals ‘A More Human Approach’. Human Rights, Obligations of the State and Network Neutrality in Europe

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (19) ◽  
pp. 29-51
Author(s):  
Andrzej Nałęcz
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Internet Access ◽  
End Users ◽  
The State ◽  
Network Neutrality ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
Access Services

The article explores the concept of the positive and negative obligations of the state in securing human rights, recognized in human rights literature, and in the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. The concept is then applied to show the importance of securing freedom of expression in regulating Internet access services and enforcing pertinent regulations in EU Member States. The author is of the opinion that economic arguments should not overshadow the need to secure the freedom of expression of the end-users of Internet access services.

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS IN THE EXTRATERRITORIAL PROCESSING OF ASYLUM CLAIMS

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 135-158
Author(s):  
Anna Liguori
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Responsibility ◽  
European Convention ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Present Contribution ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Pacific

The idea of establishing centres for the “external processing” of asylum claims – already supported by some European Union (EU) Member States, and actually realized in the Caribbean by the United States and in the Pacific area by Australia – has recently come to the fore again in European debates. The recent proposals – which tend to create offshore centres in Turkey and probably in African countries too – envisage various levels of involvement of EU Member States and of the EU itself. The present contribution aims to analyse, in particular, which of the various actors implicated would be responsible, and to what extent, in cases of violation of asylum seekers’ human rights. The scenario that could be envisaged is extremely complex. Disentangling the web of action/attribution/responsibility is very difficult and the risk of “blame shifting” or “passing the buck” among the various actors is high. The possibility of the extraterritorial application of the European Convention on Human Rights will also be explored, in order to assess to what extent individuals would have access to a remedy before the European Court of Human Rights.

scholarly journals Blurred lines: Detaining asylum seekers in Britain and France

2019 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-68
Author(s):  
Mary Bosworth ◽  
Marion Vannier
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Immigration Detention ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
European Project ◽  
International Human

In this article, we explore the use of immigration detention for asylum seekers in Britain and France who are awaiting removal to other European Union (EU) member states for processing under the terms of the Dublin Convention. As we will show, the emphasis on risk assessment as the grounds for detaining these people recasts humanitarian protections as security matters, effectively folding asylum seekers into a broader criminalisation of migration. A punitive response to those seeking refuge, this practice blurs the line between detention and asylum, and thereby hollows out key international human rights protections that have been central to the European project.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document