scholarly journals EXTREME MATERIAL POVERTY AS A NEGATIVE PREREQUISITE FOR THE TRANSFER OF AN APPLICANT FOR INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION TO THE COMPETENT MEMBER STATE AND FOR THE REJECTION OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE GRANT OF REFUGEE STATUS AS BEING INADMISSIBLE

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 139-161
Author(s):  
Izabela Małgorzata Wróbel
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Refugee Status ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Actual Nature ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
The Common ◽  
High Level ◽  
The Eu

             The essential measures for a common European asylum system adopted by the EU institutions include the Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 and the Directive 2013/32/EU. These acts relate to the various stages of the functioning of the common European asylum system, however, there may be a risk of a violation of the fundamental rights of applicants as set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, including the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 4 of the Charter), at both stages. Such a risk may arise as a result of deficiencies in asylum systems of the Member States. If these deficiencies are to fall within the scope of Article 4 of the Charter, they must attain a particularly high level of severity, which depends on all the circumstances of the case. An example of attaining this particularly high level of severity is the situation of extreme material poverty. As acts of the EU asylum law do not contain the terms “particularly high level of severity” and “extreme material poverty” and all the more they do not define them, guidelines on how to interpret and apply Article 4 of the Charter in the context of the common European asylum system should be sought in the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU. Therefore, the aim of the article is to explore and attempt to generalise and develop the basis and the criteria indicated by the CJEU for assessing the actual nature of deficiencies in the asylum system of the Member State in question from the point of view of the prohibition laid down in Article 4 of the Charter, with particular emphasis on the criterion of a particularly high level of severity and the situation of extreme material poverty which meets this criterion.

scholarly journals The Common European Asylum System: Balancing Mutual Trust Against Fundamental Rights Protection

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 1180-1197
Author(s):  
Georgios Anagnostaras
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
The Core ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
The Common

AbstractThe Common European Asylum System constitutes one of the principal areas in which the fundamental rights of individuals are essentially placed in competition with the core principle of mutual confidence and the need to preserve the effectiveness of EU law. That competitive relationship becomes particularly evident when applicants for international protection rely on alleged violations of their fundamental rights in order to contest their transfer to the Member State that is normally responsible for examining their asylum request according to the criteria of the Dublin III Regulation. The balancing process that needs to be carried out in this respect and the measure of the monitoring obligation that EU law imposes on the receiving Member State regarding the protection of the fundamental rights of asylum seekers are well exemplified by the preliminary ruling in Jawo. That case provides additional clarification regarding the circumstances in which the protection of fundamental rights may introduce exceptions to the principle of mutual trust. At the same time, it illustrates the inherent tensions that exist between the protection of fundamental rights and the application of the principle of mutual confidence.

The EU Right to Asylum: An Individual Entitlement to (Access) International Protection

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Violeta Moreno-Lax
Keyword(s):  
Free Movement ◽  
Illegal Migration ◽  
Refugee Status ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
The Common ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

This chapter analyses the right to asylum enshrined in Article 18 CFR and its relevance in relation to access to international protection in the EU. It sets out the origins and evolution of the notion. The chapter shows the impact of the CSR51 and the ECHR on the classic understanding that the right of asylum is a matter exclusively belonging to the sovereign. The rights to leave any country and to seek asylum implicit in those instruments are assessed, together with the principle of proportionality and the limits it imposes on State discretion, and the intersection with the absolute prohibition of refoulement. The ‘right to gain effective access to the procedure for determining refugee status’ established by the Strasbourg Court as well as developments within the Common European Asylum System are also given attention. Comparisons are made with the approach adopted by the CJEU in the areas of free movement, legal/illegal migration, and EU citizenship. This serves as a basis for the clarification of the meaning of the right to (leave to seek) asylum inscribed in the Charter that Member States must ‘guarantee’ and its implications for mechanisms of ‘integrated border management’.

scholarly journals La protección del menor no acompañado solicitante de asilo: entre estado competente y estado responsable = The protection of unaccompanied minors asylum-seekers: between competent state and responsible state

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 482
Author(s):  
Marta Requejo Isidro
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Parental Responsibility ◽  
Unaccompanied Minors ◽  
International Protection ◽  
International Jurisdiction ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
The Common ◽  
Responsible Member

Resumen: Los instrumentos de la segunda generación del Sistema Europeo Común de Asilo (SECA) incorporan el interés superior del menor como consideración primordial. En consonancia con ello prevén medidas de protección de los menores, en particular de los no acompañados, a adoptar primero por el Estado miembro que determina el Estado miembro responsable de decidir sobre la solicitud de asilo, y luego por este mismo. Por su parte, inspirado también en el interés superior del menor el Reglamento Bruselas II bis regula la competencia judicial internacional en materia de responsabilidad parental. Habida cuenta de la convergencia es legítimo preguntarse por las relaciones entre los textos. Si del examen resulta una falta de alineación de los instrumentos susceptible de afectar negativamente a los menores a los que presuntamente quieren proteger será preciso reflexionar sobre cómo resolver los conflictos.Palabras clave: menores no acompañados, solicitud de protección internacional, competencia judicial internacional, Estado miembro responsable, Reglamento Bruselas II bis, Reglamento de Dublín III.Abstract: The Common European Asylum System (CEAS) instruments of second generation incorporate the child’s best interests as a primary consideration. Accordingly, they provide for measures to protect minors, in particular unaccompanied ones, to be adopted firstly by the Member State which determines the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection, and then by the latter Member State. Inspired as well by the best interests of the child, the Brussels II bis regulation sets the rules on international jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility. The convergence begs the question of the interface between the texts. If the examination results in a lack of alignment among the instruments that may adversely affect the individuals they are meant to protect it will be necessary to reflect on how to resolve the conflict.Keywords: unaccompanied minors, application for international protection, jurisdiction, responsible Member State, Brussels II bis regulation, Dublin III regulation

Serin Alheto v. Zamestnik-Predsedatel Na Darzhavna Agentsia Za Bezhantsite (C.J.E.U.)

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 132-158
Author(s):  
Niovi Vavoula
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Member State ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Near East ◽  
Refugee Status ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Distinct Category ◽  
The Eu

On July 25, 2018, the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) released its judgment on the case of Alheto, concerning an application for international protection lodged in a European Union (EU) member state by a distinct category of refugees, namely Palestinians registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). In dealing with the particular status accorded to such persons, the Court opined that a Palestinian who is registered with UNRWA is excluded from refugee status in the EU, so long as the protection from the UN ad hoc agency is effective, which is ascertained through a full and ex nunc examination of the facts and points of law.

scholarly journals The «Dublin IV» Proposal: Towards more solidarity and protection of individual rights?

sui generis ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Progin-Theuerkauf
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Member States ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
Eu Commission ◽  
The Eu

The Achilles‘ heel of the Dublin system is and has always been the lack of solidarity between the Member States and the relatively poor standard of protection of individual rights of the concerned applicants for international protection. In May 2016, the EU Commission has published a proposal to reform the Dublin III Regulation. Will the recast regulation achieve the aim of creating «a more sustainable and fair Common European Asylum System», as announced by the Commission? The following article discusses and analyses the Dublin IV proposal in the light of the principle of solidarity and the EU’s obligation to protect fundamental rights of migrants.

scholarly journals Budget of the EU and Common Agricultural Policy for 2014-2020 in the light of the polish interests

Management ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 473-487
Author(s):  
Andrzej Czyżewski ◽  
Sebastian Stępień
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Agricultural Policy ◽  
Common Agricultural Policy ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
European Council ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Common ◽  
Polish Economy ◽  
The Eu

Summary The objective of the paper is to present the results of negotiations on the EU budget for 2014-2020, with particular emphasis on the Common Agricultural Policy. Authors indicate the steps for establishing the budget, from the proposal of the European Commission presented in 2011, ending with the draft of UE budget agreed at the meeting of the European Council on February 2013 and the meeting of the AGRIFISH on March 2013 and then approved by the political agreement of the European Commission, European Parliament and European Council on June 2013. In this context, there will be an assessment of the new budget from the point of view of Polish economy and agriculture.

The Right to Healthcare in the Common European Asylum System

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-156
Author(s):  
Marco Inglese
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Undocumented Migrants ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
The Common ◽  
Interpretative Approach ◽  
The Right

Abstract This article seeks to ascertain the role of healthcare in the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). The article is structured as follows. First, it outlines the international conceptualisation of healthcare in the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the European Social Charter (ESC) before delving into the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Second, focusing on the European Union (EU), it analyses the role of Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter) in order to verify its impact on the development of the CEAS. Third, and in conclusion, it will argue that the identification of the role of healthcare in the CEAS should be understood in light of the Charter’s scope of application. This interpretative approach will be beneficial for asylum seekers and undocumented migrants, as well as for the Member States (MSs).

Judicial independence as a precondition for mutual trust? The CJEU in Minister for Justice and Equality v. LM

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 353-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petra Bárd ◽  
Wouter van Ballegooij
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
State Compliance ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

This article discusses the relationship between judicial independence and intra-European Union (EU) cooperation in criminal matters based on the principle of mutual recognition. It focuses on the recent judgment by the Court of Justice of the EU in Case C-216/18 PPU Minister for Justice and Equality v. LM. In our view, a lack of judicial independence needs to be addressed primarily as a rule of law problem. This implies that executing judicial authorities should freeze judicial cooperation in the event should doubts arise as to respect for the rule of law in the issuing Member State. Such a measure should stay in place until the matter is resolved in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 7 TEU or a permanent mechanism for monitoring and addressing Member State compliance with democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights. The Court, however, constructed the case as a possible violation of the right to a fair trial, the essence of which includes the requirement that tribunals are independent and impartial. This latter aspect could be seen as a positive step forward in the sense that the judicial test developed in the Aranyosi case now includes rule of law considerations with regard to judicial independence. However, the practical hurdles imposed by the Court on the defence in terms of proving such violations and on judicial authorities to accept them in individual cases might amount to two steps back in upholding the rule of law within the EU.

scholarly journals Current Challenges of European Integration - 12th Network Europe Conference, 9 – 10 November 2020

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
André S. Berne ◽  
Jelena Ceranic Perisic ◽  
Viorel Cibotaru ◽  
Alex de Ruyter ◽  
Ivana Kunda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
European Integration ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Majority Vote ◽  
Integration Process ◽  
Asylum Policy ◽  
Massive Influx ◽  
The Common ◽  
First Time ◽  
The Eu

Crises are not a new phenomenon in the context of European integration. Additional integration steps could often only be achieved under the pressure of crises.  At present, however, the EU is characterised by multiple crises, so that the integration process as a whole is sometimes being questioned. In 2015, the crisis in the eurozone had escalated to such an extent that for the first time a member state was threatened to leave the eurozone. Furthermore, the massive influx of refugees into the EU has revealed the shortcomings of the Schengen area and the common asylum policy. Finally, with the majority vote of the British in the referendum of 23 June 2016 in favour of the Brexit, the withdrawal of a member state became a reality for the first time. Even in the words of the European Commission, the EU has reached a crossroads. Against this background, the twelfth Network Europe conference included talks on the numerous challenges and future integration scenarios in Europe. 

COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM: THE CAUSES OF THE CRISIS AND ITS CONSEQUENCES FOR EUROPEAN CONSTITUTIONALISM

2021 ◽  
pp. 81-91
Author(s):  
S.I. Kodaneva
Keyword(s):  
Middle East ◽  
Existing Problems ◽  
Massive Influx ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Eu

The massive influx of refugees from the Middle East in 2015 caused a crisis in the Common European Asylum System, which provoked a European constitutional crisis. This review presents three articles that formulate the existing problems and the risks they cause for the EU, as well as analyzing their causes and prerequisites.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document