The Court of Justice of the EU and the Common European Asylum System : Entering the Third Phase of Harmonisation?

2014 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
The Third ◽  
Third Phase ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Eu

The Court of Justice of the EU and the Common European Asylum System: Entering the Third Phase of Harmonisation?

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 53-71
Author(s):  
Samuel Boutruche Zarevac
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Third Phase ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
Special Expertise ◽  
The Common ◽  
Fundamental Values ◽  
The Eu

Abstract ‘That assessment of the extent of the risk [of persecution] must, in all cases, be carried out with vigilance and care, since what are at issue are issues relating to the integrity of the person and to individual liberties, issues which relate to the fundamental values of the Union.’ The case law of the Court of Justice of the EU concerning the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) is still limited. Nonetheless, even this limited case law already offers interesting insights into analysing the potential role of the Court of Justice of the EU in the development of the CEAS, and this jurisprudence is in any event likely to grow significantly, due to the fact that the provisions of the CEAS are the result of a political compromise and so lack clarity. This chapter examines the ruling delivered by the Court in the case of Elgafaji, which contains certain elements which address the interpretative difficulties raised by Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive, and goes on to consider, through a discussion of the recent ruling in Abdulla, the extent to which the Court’s interpretation of those provisions of the CEAS which replicate the wording of the 1951 Convention will influence the interpretation of this international instrument, and the difficulties presented in this context. The extent of this influence remains to be seen, but it is clear in any event that the Court of Justice is likely to play a major role in the development of the CEAS. One amendment which may prove necessary is the modification of the Court of Justice’s procedural rules such that it can take into account the views of third-party organisations with a special expertise in this field.

The Court of Justice of the EU and the Common European Asylum System: Entering the Third Phase of Harmonisation?

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 53-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel Boutruche Zarevac
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Third Phase ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
Special Expertise ◽  
The Common ◽  
Fundamental Values ◽  
The Eu

Abstract‘That assessment of the extent of the risk [of persecution] must, in all cases, be carried out with vigilance and care, since what are at issue are issues relating to the integrity of the person and to individual liberties, issues which relate to the fundamental values of the Union.’The case law of the Court of Justice of the EU concerning the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) is still limited. Nonetheless, even this limited case law already offers interesting insights into analysing the potential role of the Court of Justice of the EU in the development of the CEAS, and this jurisprudence is in any event likely to grow significantly, due to the fact that the provisions of the CEAS are the result of a political compromise and so lack clarity. This chapter examines the ruling delivered by the Court in the case of Elgafaji, which contains certain elements which address the interpretative difficulties raised by Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive, and goes on to consider, through a discussion of the recent ruling in Abdulla, the extent to which the Court’s interpretation of those provisions of the CEAS which replicate the wording of the 1951 Convention will influence the interpretation of this international instrument, and the difficulties presented in this context. The extent of this influence remains to be seen, but it is clear in any event that the Court of Justice is likely to play a major role in the development of the CEAS. One amendment which may prove necessary is the modification of the Court of Justice’s procedural rules such that it can take into account the views of third-party organisations with a special expertise in this field.

scholarly journals Case Report on C-411/10, N.S. and C-493/10, M.E. and Others, 21 December 2011

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Lieven
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Report ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The European Court of Justice clarified through this judgment the way in which the overloading of a Member States’ asylum system affects the EU arrangements for determining the Member State responsible for asylum applications lodged in the EU and thereby drastically reduced the possibility granted to Member States to transfer asylum applicants. The Member States now have an obligation to verify that no serious risk of violation of the Charter rights of the applicant exits in the receiving country before being allowed to transfer the person. The practical consequences of this ruling are still uncertain but further cooperation between Member States should be able to enhance the level of protection of human rights within the Common European Asylum System.

Advancing community-led research into the climate of the Common Era

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah S. Eggleston ◽  
Steven Phipps ◽  
Oliver Bothe ◽  
Helen V. McGregor ◽  
Belen Martrat ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Science ◽  
Global Changes ◽  
Present Climate ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Past ◽  
Third Phase ◽  
The Common ◽  
Common Era ◽  
Scientific Questions ◽  
New Phase

<p>The past two thousand years is a key interval for climate science. This period encompasses both the era of human-induced global warming and a much longer interval when changes in Earth’s climate were governed principally by natural drivers and unforced variability. Since 2009, the Past Global Changes (PAGES) 2k Network has brought together hundreds of scientists from around the world to reconstruct and understand the climate of the Common Era using open and collaborative approaches to palaeoclimate science, including virtual meetings. The third phase of the network will end in December 2021. Here we highlight some key outputs of PAGES 2k and present the major themes and scientific questions emerging from recent surveys of the community. We explore how these might boost a new phase of PAGES 2k or a successor project(s). This year we will further reach out to the community through Town Hall consultations, vEGU and other meetings, and a PAGES 2k global webinar series. The aim of these activities is to foster development of post-2021 community-led PAGES initiatives that connect past and present climate.</p>

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.

ASYLUM PROCEDURE IN LATVIA - A PART OF COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (7) ◽  
pp. 7
Author(s):  
Iveta Adijāne
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Method ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Countries ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
The Common ◽  
Asylum Procedure ◽  
Domain Information ◽  
The Eu

The Common European Asylum System (CEAS) conditions apply to Latvia. Development of the Common European Asylum System impacts Latvian legislation and has an effect on the work of judicial institutions. Any European Union scale change affects Latvia. Common European Asylum System conditions in Latvia are being met by direct implementation of the EU instructions. Well-considered position and evaluation of CEAS conditions according to Latvian interests is necessary. Goal of this article is to review demands of the Common European Asylum System towards the member states as well as concordance of the Latvian asylum procedure with conditions of the Common European Asylum System. Objectives of this research is to examine development of legislation in the EU and Latvia, to analyse and compare current legislation of the asylum procedure in the EU member states as well as to analyse impact of CEAS towards the asylum procedure in Latvia. In order to achieve objectives, following research methods were used: monographic research of theoretical and empirical sources in order to analyse and evaluate various asylum domain information, analytical method in order to acquire legislative content and verities, comparative method in order to discover differences in legislation of asylum procedure in the EU countries, systemic method in order to disclose interconnections in legislation, descriptive statistics method and correlation analysis in order to analyse process of the asylum procedure and determine interconnections in the asylum procedure time frame between legislation and practical instances in EU countries.

The Jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Respect of the Common Foreign and Security Policy

2006 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria-Gisella Garbagnati Ketvel
Keyword(s):  
Security Policy ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
European Court ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
The Common ◽  
Limited Scope ◽  
The Eu

The purpose of this article is to consider the scope of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, as set out in the Treaty on European Union. Pursuant to Article 46 TEU, the ECJ has virtually no competence over foreign policy and security matters—although some limited scope for judicial supervision may be derived from the combined effect of this provision with Article 47 TEU, which prevents encroachment by EU law on Community competence, with respect both to reviewing the choice of legal basis and to determining any violations of EC policy-making procedures. It is submitted that the absence of judicial control over the exercise of powers by the Union and its Member States in this area of potentially sensitive action does not guarantee the preservation of the institutional balance established by the EU Treaty. It may also prove incompatible for individuals to have a legal remedy in the event of a breach of directly effective CFSP provisions.

The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice in the Light of the EU Accession to the ECHR—Is the Break-up Inevitable?

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 227-254
Author(s):  
Alexander Kornezov
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
Core Elements ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Eu

AbstractEven though the decision to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) is a fait accompli, the terms under which the accession should take place are still very much open to debate. The present chapter focuses specifically on the possible tensions which may arise in the aftermath of the EU’s accession to the ECHR in four of the core elements of the EU area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ): recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, wrongful removal or retention of a child, the Common European Asylum System and the European Arrest Warrant. It then puts forward a number of solutions which could be included either in the accession agreement itself or in the post-accession case law of the ECtHR and which allow not only for the preservation of the coherence and integrity of the AFSJ but also for external judicial control on human rights matters in the AFSJ.

scholarly journals A Federal Turn? The European Union’s Response to Constitutional Crises in the Member States

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-70
Author(s):  
Matteo Bonelli
Keyword(s):  
Member States ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
Common Values ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Common ◽  
Systemic Problems ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The EU has not yet found effective answers to constitutional crises in its Member States, in particular Hungary and Poland. Due to systemic problems of compliance with the common values of Art. 2, the legitimacy of the EU constitutional order and its smooth functioning are under threat, but the EU lacks instruments of direct enforcement and coercion. Several authors have therefore proposed to ‘federalize’ EU mechanisms and to guarantee to EU institutions, in particular the Court of Justice, more powers to intervene vis-à-vis Member States. However, the current Treaty framework presents a series of obstacles to federal-like enforcement. Solutions to national crises must ultimately respect the constitutional balance between the Union and the Member States.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document