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.

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 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.

Internationaler Schutz im Falle extremer Armut

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meta Oepen-Mathey
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Extreme Poverty ◽  
Cultural Rights ◽  
European System ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
The Common

The book critically examines the juxtaposition of refugees eligible for admission or subsidiary protection and so-called poverty or economic refugees allegedly ineligible for protection. With regard to the question of whether international protection should be granted in cases of extreme poverty on the basis of the Common European Asylum System, the role of economic, social and cultural rights as well as the case law of the two European courts are examined in particular. Furthermore, existing challenges are identified and a proposal for a solution that closes protection gaps in the sense of a more far-reaching harmonisation of the European system is presented.

scholarly journals Principled Silence or Mere Silence on Principles? The Role of the EU Charter’s Principles in the Case Law of the Court of Justice

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 321-356 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jasper Krommendijk
Keyword(s):  
Direct Effect ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Eu

Historical background of the inclusion of social rights in the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Distinction between rights and principles – Similarities between the conditions for direct effect and the criteria for distinguishing between Charter rights and principles – Implications of this distinction for the possibilities of judicial review – Reluctance of the ECJ to explicitly deal with the distinction until Glatzel, as illustrated by its earlier judgments in Dominguez and AMS.

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

Abstract Even 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.

Solidarity at work? The prevalence of emergency-driven solidarity in the administrative governance of the Common European Asylum System

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 667-686 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evangelia (Lilian) Tsourdi
Keyword(s):  
Refugee Crisis ◽  
Asylum Policy ◽  
Common Area ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
The Common ◽  
Administrative Governance ◽  
Fair Sharing ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Area Of Protection

Policymakers conceptualize the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) as a ‘common area of protection and solidarity’. And yet, the absence of solidarity and fair-sharing in the administrative governance of the policy is glaringly salient. Against this backdrop, this article explores Article 80 TFEU, establishing the principle of ‘solidarity and fair-sharing of responsibility’. This analysis reveals it to be a principle that is structural to the EU asylum policy, dictates a certain ‘quality’ in the co-operation of the different actors, and affects the goal of the policy. To do this, after outlining the initial implementation design of the asylum policy, I examine ‘shifts’ in its administration modes, focusing on developments in responsibility-assignation, practical cooperation and EU funding. The analysis covers developments prompted by the 2015 ‘refugee crisis’, such as the emergency intra-EU relocation schemes, the emergence of new funding lines and the enhancement in the operational role of EU agencies. This article argues that, despite the rhetoric surrounding the solidarity principle, rather than being structurally embedded in the system’s administration modes, it remains emergency-driven. In this sense, the implementation design fails both to attain ‘fair sharing’, as well as to respond to what are essentially structural, rather than exceptional needs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document