Journal

The Case of the Administrative Arrangement between Greece and Germany: A tale of “paraDublin activity”?

Date: 
Monday, November 5, 2018

In mid-August 2018 Germany, Greece and Spain agreed on the sketchy details of the initial migration compromise deal that was reached on the sidelines of the EU Summit in Brussels late June 2018. In this context, the Ministers on Migration of Germany and Greece reaffirmed their commitment by exchange of letters, to work towards common European solutions and to avoid any unilateral measure with respect to migration and...

'Second time’s a charm’ – the CJEU’s interpretation of the irregular border crossing criterion in the Dublin Regulation in A.S. and Jafari

Date: 
Tuesday, February 13, 2018

Introduction

On 26 July 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decided on the request for a preliminary ruling by a Slovenian (C-490/16) and an Austrian Court (C-646/16) and held that the responsibility criteria under the Dublin III Regulation (EU/604/2013) also applied during the so-called “migration crisis” of 2015/2016. According to the Grand...

The ECtHR Ruling in Ilias and Ahmed: ‘safe third country’ concept put to the test

Date: 
Thursday, April 13, 2017

On 14 March 2017 the Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered its judgement in the case of Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary concerning two asylum seekers of Bangladeshi nationality who were detained at the border zone in Hungary and then subject to removal to Serbia. Although the judgement is not final yet (as Hungary could...

The Emergence of the Entry Human Rights Principle. Looking Beyond the X.X. Case

Date: 
Thursday, April 6, 2017

1. Introduction 

On 7 March, the CJEU in the X.X. case decided that Member States were not obliged under Article 25(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 (CCV) to issue a short-term visa for humanitarian purposes as the applicants planned to stay for...

Looking like a cat, walking like a cat, sounding like a cat but actually being a dog: What the X and X judgment means for the scope of the EU Charter?

Date: 
Wednesday, April 5, 2017

An easy way out: the Court’s judgment in X and X

Saying that the X and X judgment was awaited with bated breath is an understatement. The referral of X and X’s case gave a window of opportunity to the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) to rule on whether EU law obliges States to provide a limited territorial visa (‘LTV’) on humanitarian grounds for those who risk treatment contrary to the...

The ZAT case and the far-reaching consequences for the Dublin Regulation

Date: 
Thursday, February 9, 2017

1.  Introduction

The ZAT case was a judicial review before the UK Upper Tribunal. The outcome of the first instance judicial review suggested that the operation of the Dublin Regulation was inadequate to provide the necessary protection the applicants needed...

The Use of Country of Origin Information by the European Court of Human Rights in the Assessment of a Real Risk of a Violation of the Prohibition of Torture, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Date: 
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
  1. Introduction

The European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) case law is binding on the countries concerned and has led governments to alter their legislation and administrative practice in a wide range of areas. The ECtHR’s case law on Article 3 ECHR (prohibition on torture) has likewise influenced national asylum policies and practices. For example, the conclusions in the case of Sufi and Elmi, classified by the ECtHR as highly important (level 1), have made their way into national...

Justiciable rights stemming from delays in first instance determination decisions

Date: 
Friday, November 4, 2016

Introduction

Delays in issuing first instance decisions are becoming part and parcel of Member States asylum procedures. As the recent AIDA briefing on the length of asylum procedures has pointed out States often exceed prescribed deadlines by a considerable amount of time. Ultimately lengthy waiting times lead to precarity and uncertainty for individuals given that rights associated with international protection are effectively stalled. As aptly pointed out by the...

Developments in the assessment of the “reasonableness test” within the Internal Protection Alternative concept in Slovenia

Date: 
Wednesday, October 26, 2016

I.                   Introduction

As a concept, the Internal Protection Alternative (IPA) provides that the asylum authority may refuse a well-founded application for international protection, if the applicant can move to another part of their country and thereby avoid fear of persecution or serious harm, if certain conditions are met. It is part of the assessment of facts, based on the subsidiarity of international protection, i.e. another state is obliged to provide international protection...

Allocating responsibility for an asylum application through Convention rights: The potential impact of ZAT & Others

Date: 
Thursday, March 3, 2016

This journal entry should be read in conjunction with the EDAL case summary available here, where a summary of the facts is also available.

Introduction:

The presence of migrant and refugee camps in northern France, on the edge of the Schengen zone and just 21 miles away from the UK has long been symbolic of the practical failings of the CEAS and in particular...

Pages