32
European Asylum Support Office SUPPORT IS OUR MISSION Compilaon of jurisprudence Asylum procedures and the principle of non-refoulement July 2018 Produced by IARLJ-Europe under contract to EASO

Asylum procedures and the principle - easo.europa.eu · European Asylum Support Office The European Asylum Support Office (EASO) is an agency of the European Union that plays a key

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

European Asylum Support Office

SUPPORT IS OUR MISSION

Compilation of jurisprudence

Asylum procedures and the principle of non-refoulement

July 2018

Produced by IARLJ-Europe under contract to EASO

EASO professional development materials have been created in cooperation with members of courts and tribunals on the following topics:

an introduction to the Common European Asylum System for courts and tribunals; qualification for international protection (Directive 2011/95/EU); asylum procedures and the principle of non-refoulement; evidence and credibility assessment in the context of the Common European Asylum

System; Article 15(c) qualification directive (Directive 2011/95/EU); exclusion: Articles 12 and 17 qualification directive (Directive 2011/95/EU); ending international protection: Articles 11, 14, 16 and 19 Qualification Directive (Directive

2011/95/EU); a country of origin information.

The Professional Development Series comprises Judicial analyses, Judicial trainers' guidance notes and Compilations of jurisprudence for each topic covered, apart from Country of ori-gin information which comprises a Judicial practical guide accompanied by a Compilation of jurisprudence. All materials are developed in English. For more information on publications, including on the availability of different language versions, please visit www.easo.europa.eu/training-quality/courts-and-tribunals.

http://www.easo.europa.eu/training-quality/courts-and-tribunals.http://www.easo.europa.eu/training-quality/courts-and-tribunals.

European Asylum Support Office

SUPPORT IS OUR MISSION

July 2018

Compilation of jurisprudence

Asylum procedures and the principle of non-refoulement

EASO Professional Development Series for members of courts and tribunals

More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu).

Print ISBN 978-92-9494-752-9 doi:10.2847/065986 BZ-07-17-011-EN-C PDF ISBN 978-92-9494-751-2 doi:10.2847/529423 BZ-07-17-011-EN-N

European Asylum Support Office 2018

Neither EASO nor any person acting on its behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained herein.

http://europa.eu

3Compilation of jurisprudence: Asylum procedures and the principle of non-refoulement

European Asylum Support Office

The European Asylum Support Office (EASO) is an agency of the European Union that plays a key role in the concrete development of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). It was established with the aim of enhancing practical cooperation on asylum matters and help-ing Member States fulfil their European and international obligations to give protection to people in need.

Article 6 of the EASO founding regulation (1) specifies that the agency shall establish and develop training available to members of courts and tribunals in the Member States. For this purpose, EASO shall take advantage of the expertise of academic institutions and other rele-vant organisations, and take into account the Unions existing cooperation in the field with full respect to the independence of national courts and tribunals.

The International Association of Refugee Law Judges

The International Association of Refugee Law Judges (IARLJ) is a transnational, non-profit asso-ciation that seeks to foster recognition that protection from persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group is an indi-vidual right established under international law and that the determination of refugee status and its cessation should be subject to the rule of law. Since its foundation in 1997, the associ-ation has been heavily involved in the training of judges around the world dealing with asylum cases. The European Chapter of the IARLJ (IARLJ-Europe) is the regional representative body for judges within Europe. One of IARLJ-Europes specific objectives under its Constitution is to enhance knowledge and skills and to exchange views and experiences of judges on all matters concerning the application and functioning of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS).

Contributors

This compilation of jurisprudence has been developed by a two-component process: an edi-torial team (ET) of judges and tribunal members with overall responsibility for the final product, and a drafting team of experts.

In order to ensure the integrity of the principle of judicial independence and that the EASO Professional Development Series for members of courts and tribunals (PDS) is developed and de livered under judicial guidance, an ET composed of serving judges and tribunal members with extensive experience and expertise in the field of asylum law was selected under the aus-pices of a Joint Monitoring Group. The group is composed of representatives of the contracting parties, EASO and IARLJ-Europe. The ET reviewed drafts, gave detailed guidance to the drafting team, drafted amendments and was the final decision-making body as to the scope, structure, content and design of the work. The work of the ET was undertaken through a combination of face-to-face meetings in London in May 2017 and in Brussels in October 2017 as well as regular electronic/telephonic communication.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 439/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 establishing a European Asylum Support Office (OJ L 132, 29.5.2010, pp. 11-28).

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:132:0011:0028:EN:PDF

4 Compilation of jurisprudence: Asylum procedures and theprinciple of non-refoulement

Editorial team of judges

The members of the ET were judges and tribunal members Hugo Storey (United Kingdom, Chair), Hilkka Becker (Ireland), Jakub Camrda (Czech Republic), Katelijne Declerck (Belgium), Michael Hoppe (Germany), Liesbeth Steendijk (Netherlands), Florence Malvasio (France) and Botjan Zalar (Slovenia). The ET was supported and assisted in its task by Project Coordination Manager Clara Odofin.

Drafting team of experts

The drafting team consisted of lead expert Professor Jens Vedsted-Hansen (Aarhus University, Denmark), Dr Cline Bauloz (Global Migration Centre, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland), Dr Constantin Hruschka (University of Bielefeld, Germany), Hana Lupaov (Public Defender of Human Rights, Brno, Czech Republic), Dr Dirk Sander (Federal Administrative Court, Leipzig, Germany) and Dr Louise Halleskov Storgaard (Aarhus University, Denmark). Consultants Frances Nicholson and Claire Thomas provided editorial support.

Acknowledgements

Comments on the draft were received from Judge Lars Bay Larsen and Yann Laurans of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and from Judge Ledi Bianku of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in their personal capacities.

Comments were also received from the following participants in the EASO network of court and tribunal members and in the EASO consultative forum: Ana Celeste Carvalho, appellate judge at the Central South Administrative Court and judicial trainer at the Centre for Judicial Studies, Lisbon, Portugal; Lars I. Magnusson, judge at the Administrative Court of Gothen-burg, Sweden, and migration law representative at the Judicial Training Academy, Jnkping, Sweden; Catherine Koutsopoulou, judge at the Court of First Instance of Athens and member of the third Independent Appeal Committee, Athens, Greece; European Council on Refugees and Exiles, Brussels, Belgium; Koulocheris Spyros, head of legal research, Greek Council for Refugees, Athens, Greece; and Oikonomou Sypros-Vlad, legal and programmes intern, Greek Council for Refugees, Athens, Greece.

All these comments were taken into consideration by the ET in finalising the text for publica-tion. The members of the ET and EASO are grateful to all those who have made comments, which have been very helpful in finalising this compilation of jurisprudence.

This compilation will be updated as necessary by EASO, in accordance with the methodology for the EASO Professional Development Series for members of courts and tribunals.

5Compilation of jurisprudence: Asylum procedures and the principle of non-refoulement

Compilation of jurisprudence

The purpose of this compilation of jurisprudence is to provide courts and tribunals in Member States with a helpful aid when hearing appeals or conducting reviews of decisions on appli-cations for international protection cases. Contributors decided to include in this compilation jurisprudence from the CJEU and the ECtHR and national case-law from two Member States.

6 Compilation of jurisprudence: Asylum procedures and theprinciple of non-refoulement

Com

pila

tion

of ju

rispr

uden

ce

Cour

t of J

ustic

e of

the

Euro

pean

Uni

on ju

rispr

uden

ce

Cour

tCa

se n

ame/

re

fere

nce/

date

Rele

vanc

e/ke

y w

ords

/mai

n po

ints

Case

s cite

d

CJEU

The

Que

en v

Sec

reta

ry

of S

tate

for T

rans

port

, ex

par

te F

acto

rtam

e,

Case

C-2

13/8

9,

EU:C

:199

0:25

7.

19.6

.199

0

Judg

men

t afte

r a re

fere

nce

for a

pre

limin

ary

rulin

g fr

om th

e U

nite

d Ki

ngdo

m re

latin

g to

the

right

s der

ived

from

pro

visio

ns o

f Com

mun

ity la

w.

Com

mun

ity la

w

app

licati

on fo

r int

erim

relie

f e

xist

ence

of a

nati

onal

rule

pro

hibi

ting

that

app

licati

on fr

om b

eing

gra

nted

d

uties

and

pow

ers o

f the

co

urt s

eise

d.

Para

. 21:

It m

ust b

e ad

ded

that

the

full

effec

tiven

ess o

f Com

mun

ity la

w w

ould

be

just

as m

uch

impa

ired

if a

rule

of n

ation

al la

w c

ould

pre

vent

a c

ourt

se

ised

of a

disp

ute

gove

rned

by

Com

mun

ity la

w fr

om g

ranti

ng in

terim

relie

f in

orde

r to

ensu

re th

e fu

ll eff

ectiv

enes

s of t

he ju

dgm

ent t

o be

giv

en o

n th

e ex

isten

ce o

f the

righ

ts c

laim

ed u

nder

Com

mun

ity la

w. I

t fol

low

s tha

t a c

ourt

whi

ch in

thos

e ci

rcum

stan

ces w

ould

gra

nt in

terim

relie

f, if

it w

ere

not f

or

a ru

le o

f nati

onal

law,

is o

blig

ed to

set a

side

that

rule

.

CJEU

Virg

inie

Pon

tin

v T-

Com

alux

SA,

Ca

se C

-63/

08,

EU:C

:200

9:66

6.

29.1

0.20

09

Judg

men

t afte

r a re

fere

nce

for a

pre

limin

ary

rulin

g fr

om th

e Tr

ibun

al d

u tr

avai

l dE

sch-

sur-A

lzette

(Lux

embo

urg)

rela

ting

to th

e re

stric

tion

of re

med

ies

avai

labl

e to

wom

en d

ismiss

ed d

urin

g pr

egna

ncy.

Judi

cial

pro

tecti

on o

f rig

hts e

njoy

ed b

y in

divi

dual

s und

er C

omm

unity

law

e

qual

trea

tmen

t for

men

and

wom

en

less

favo

urab

le tr

eatm

ent o

f a

wom

an re

late

d to

pre

gnan

cy o

r mat

erni

ty le

ave

re

med

ies a

vaila

ble

to w

omen

.

Para

. 65:

How

ever

, eve

n if

that

pro

visio

n w

ere

to li

mit

the

effec

ts o

f tha

t cas

e-la

w re

latin

g to

the

posti

ng o

f the

lette

r of d

ismiss

al, w

hich

, whe

re

nece

ssar

y, it

is fo

r the

refe

rrin

g co

urt t

o de

cide

, it w

ould

how

ever

be

very

diffi

cult

for a

fem

ale

wor

ker d

ismiss

ed d

urin

g he

r pre

gnan

cy to

obt

ain

prop

er

advi

ce a

nd, i

f app

ropr

iate

, pre

pare

and

brin

g an

acti

on w

ithin

the

15-d

ay p

erio

d.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30ddcb0c7f4009be4526addce480e7d5a84e.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxyNbNj0?text=&docid=96746&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=959102http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30ddcb0c7f4009be4526addce480e7d5a84e.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxyNbNj0?text=&docid=96746&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=959102http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30ddcb0c7f4009be4526addce480e7d5a84e.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxyNbNj0?text=&docid=96746&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=959102http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=73372&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=44173http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=73372&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=44173

7Compilation of jurisprudence: Asylum procedures and the principle of non-refoulement

Cour

tCa

se n

ame/

re

fere

nce/

date

Rele

vanc

e/ke

y w

ords

/mai

n po

ints

Case

s cite

d

CJEU

Hass

en E

l Drid

i, al

ias S

oufi

Karim

, Ca

se C

-61/

11 P

PU,

EU:C

:201

1:26

8.

28.4

.201

1

Judg

men

t afte

r a re

fere

nce

for a

pre

limin

ary

rulin

g fr

om th

e Co

rte

dap

pello

di T

rent

o (It

aly)

rela

ting

to c

omm

on st

anda

rds a

nd p

roce

dure

s in

Mem

ber

Stat

es fo

r ret

urni

ng il

lega

lly st

ayin

g th

ird-c

ount

ry n

ation

als.

Retu

rn o

f ille

gally

stay

ing

third

-cou

ntry

nati

onal

s A

rticl

es 1

5 an

d 16

of D

irecti

ve 2

008/

115/

EC

det

entio

n in

the

even

t of r

efus

al to

obe

y an

ord

er to

le

ave

the

terr

itory

of a

Mem

ber S

tate

.

Para

s. 3

6-38

: 36

. As p

art o

f tha

t ini

tial s

tage

of t

he re

turn

pro

cedu

re, p

riorit

y is

to b

e gi

ven,

exc

ept w

here

oth

erw

ise p

rovi

ded

for,

to v

olun

tary

co

mpl

ianc

e w

ith th

e ob

ligati

on re

sulti

ng fr

om th

at re

turn

dec

ision

, with

Arti

cle

7(1)

of D

irecti

ve 2

008/

115/

EC p

rovi

ding

that

the

deci

sion

mus

t pro

vide

fo

r an

appr

opria

te p

erio

d fo

r vol

unta

ry d

epar

ture

of b

etw

een

seve

n an

d 30

day

s.

37. I

t fol

low

s fro

m A

rticl

e 7(

3) a

nd (4

) of t

hat d

irecti

ve th

at it

is o

nly

in p

artic

ular

circ

umst

ance

s, su

ch a

s whe

re th

ere

is a

risk

of a

bsco

ndin

g, th

at M

embe

r St

ates

may

, firs

t, re

quire

the

addr

esse

e of

a re

turn

dec

ision

to re

port

regu

larly

to th

e au

thor

ities

, dep

osit

an a

dequ

ate

finan

cial

gua

rant

ee, s

ubm

it do

cum

ents

or s

tay

at a

cer

tain

pla

ce o

r, se

cond

, gra

nt a

per

iod

shor

ter t

han

7 da

ys fo

r vol

unta

ry d

epar

ture

or e

ven

refr

ain

from

gra

nting

such

a p

erio

d.

38. I

n th

e la

tter s

ituati

on, b

ut a

lso w

here

the

oblig

ation

to re

turn

has

not

bee

n co

mpl

ied

with

with

in th

e pe

riod

for v

olun

tary

dep

artu

re, A

rticl

e 8(

1)

and

(4) o

f Dire

ctive

200

8/11

5/EC

pro

vide

s tha

t, in

ord

er to

ens

ure

effec

tive

retu

rn p

roce

dure

s, th

ose

prov

ision

s req

uire

the

Mem

ber S

tate

whi

ch h

as

issue

d a

retu

rn d

ecisi

on a

gain

st a

n ill

egal

ly st

ayin

g th

ird-c

ount

ry n

ation

al to

car

ry o

ut th

e re

mov

al b

y ta

king

all

nece

ssar

y m

easu

res i

nclu

ding

, whe

re

appr

opria

te, c

oerc

ive

mea

sure

s, in

a p

ropo

rtion

ate

man

ner a

nd w

ith d

ue re

spec

t for

, int

er a

lia, f

unda

men

tal r

ight

s.

Para

s. 4

0-41

: 40

. Und

er th

e se

cond

subp

arag

raph

of A

rticl

e 15

(1) o

f Dire

ctive

200

8/11

5/EC

, tha

t dep

rivati

on o

f lib

erty

mus

t be

for a

s sho

rt a

per

iod

as p

ossib

le a

nd o

nly

mai

ntai

ned

as lo

ng a

s rem

oval

arr

ange

men

ts a

re in

pro

gres

s and

exe

cute

d w

ith d

ue d

ilige

nce.

Und

er A

rticl

e 15

(3) a

nd (4

), su

ch

depr

ivati

on o

f lib

erty

is su

bjec

t to

revi

ew a

t rea

sona

ble

inte

rval

s of ti

me

and

is to

be

term

inat

ed w

hen

it ap

pear

s tha

t a re

ason

able

pro

spec

t of r

emov

al

no lo

nger

exi

sts.

Arti

cle

15(5

) and

(6) fi

xes t

he m

axim

um d

urati

on o

f det

entio

n at

18

mon

ths,

a li

mit

whi

ch is

impo

sed

on a

ll M

embe

r Sta

tes.

Arti

cle

16(1

) of

that

dire

ctive

furt

her r

equi

res t

hat t

he p

erso

ns c

once

rned

are

to b

e pl

aced

in a

spec

ialis

ed fa

cilit

y an

d, in

any

eve

nt, k

ept s

epar

ated

from

ord

inar

y pr

isone

rs.

41. I

t fol

low

s fro

m th

e fo

rego

ing

that

the

orde

r in

whi

ch th

e st

ages

of t

he re

turn

pro

cedu

re e

stab

lishe

d by

Dire

ctive

200

8/11

5/EC

are

to ta

ke p

lace

co

rres

pond

s to

a gr

adati

on o

f the

mea

sure

s to

be ta

ken

in o

rder

to e

nfor

ce th

e re

turn

dec

ision

, a g

rada

tion

whi

ch g

oes f

rom

the

mea

sure

whi

ch a

llow

s th

e pe

rson

con

cern

ed th

e m

ost l

iber

ty, n

amel

y gr

antin

g a

perio

d fo

r his

volu

ntar

y de

part

ure,

to m

easu

res w

hich

rest

rict t

hat l

iber

ty th

e m

ost,

nam

ely

dete

ntion

in a

spec

ialis

ed fa

cilit

y; th

e pr

inci

ple

of p

ropo

rtion

ality

mus

t be

obse

rved

thro

ugho

ut th

ose

stag

es.

Para

. 58:

Con

sequ

ently

, the

Mem

ber S

tate

s may

not

, in

orde

r to

rem

edy

the

failu

re o

f coe

rciv

e m

easu

res a

dopt

ed in

ord

er to

car

ry o

ut fo

rced

rem

oval

pu

rsua

nt to

Arti

cle

8(4)

of t

hat d

irecti

ve, p

rovi

de fo

r a c

usto

dial

sent

ence

, suc

h as

that

pro

vide

d fo

r by

Artic

le 1

4(5b

) of L

egisl

ative

Dec

ree

No

286/

1998

, on

the

sole

gro

und

that

a th

ird-c

ount

ry n

ation

al c

ontin

ues t

o st

ay il

lega

lly o

n th

e te

rrito

ry o

f a M

embe

r Sta

te a

fter a

n or

der t

o le

ave

the

natio

nal

terr

itory

was

noti

fied

to h

im a

nd th

e pe

riod

gran

ted

in th

at o

rder

has

exp

ired;

rath

er, t

hey

mus

t pur

sue

thei

r effo

rts t

o en

forc

e th

e re

turn

dec

ision

, whi

ch

conti

nues

to p

rodu

ce it

s effe

cts.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=82038&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=960092http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=82038&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=960092

8 Compilation of jurisprudence: Asylum procedures and theprinciple of non-refoulement

Cour

tCa

se n

ame/

re

fere

nce/

date

Rele

vanc

e/ke

y w

ords

/mai

n po

ints

Case

s cite

d

CJEU

Brah

im S

amba

Di

ouf v

Min

istre

du

Trav

ail,

de l

Empl

oi

et d

e lI

mm

igra

tion,

Ca

se C

-69/

10,

EU:C

:201

1:52

4.

28.7

.201

1

Judg

men

t afte

r a re

fere

nce

for a

pre

limin

ary

rulin

g fr

om th

e Tr

ibun

al a

dmin

istra

tif (L

uxem

bour

g) c

once

rnin

g th

e in

terp

reta

tion

of A

rticl

e 39

of C

ounc

il Di

recti

ve 2

005/

85/E

C of

1 D

ecem

ber 2

005

on m

inim

um st

anda

rds o

n pr

oced

ures

in M

embe

r Sta

tes f

or g

ranti

ng a

nd w

ithdr

awin

g re

fuge

e st

atus

.

Min

imum

stan

dard

s on

proc

edur

es in

Mem

ber S

tate

s for

gra

nting

and

with

draw

ing

refu

gee

stat

us

no

rem

edy

agai

nst t

he d

ecisi

on to

dea

l with

the

appl

icati

on u

nder

an

acce

lera

ted

proc

edur

e

righ

t to

effec

tive

judi

cial

revi

ew.

Para

s. 4

1-43

: 41

. In

that

rega

rd, i

t is c

lear

from

the

wor

ding

of A

rticl

e 39

(1)(a

) of D

irecti

ve 2

005/

85/E

C an

d, in

par

ticul

ar, f

rom

the

non-

exha

ustiv

e lis

t of

deci

sions

con

tain

ed th

erei

n, th

at th

e co

ncep

t of a

dec

ision

take

n on

[the

] app

licati

on fo

r asy

lum

cov

ers a

serie

s of d

ecisi

ons w

hich

, bec

ause

they

ent

ail

reje

ction

of a

n ap

plic

ation

for a

sylu

m o

r are

take

n at

the

bord

er, a

mou

nt to

a fi

nal d

ecisi

on re

jecti

ng th

e ap

plic

ation

on

the

subs

tanc

e. T

he sa

me

is tr

ue o

f th

e ot

her d

ecisi

ons w

hich

, und

er A

rticl

e 39

(1)(b

) to

(e) o

f Dire

ctive

200

5/85

/EC,

are

exp

ress

ly m

ade

subj

ect t

o th

e rig

ht to

an

effec

tive

judi

cial

rem

edy.

42. A

ccor

ding

ly, th

e de

cisio

ns a

gain

st w

hich

an

appl

ican

t for

asy

lum

mus

t hav

e a

rem

edy

unde

r Arti

cle

39(1

) of D

irecti

ve 2

005/

85/E

C ar

e th

ose

whi

ch

enta

il re

jecti

on o

f the

app

licati

on fo

r asy

lum

for s

ubst

antiv

e re

ason

s or,

as th

e ca

se m

ay b

e, fo

r for

mal

or p

roce

dura

l rea

sons

whi

ch p

recl

ude

any

deci

sion

on th

e su

bsta

nce.

43. I

t fol

low

s tha

t dec

ision

s tha

t are

pre

para

tory

to th

e de

cisio

n on

the

subs

tanc

e or

dec

ision

s per

tain

ing

to th

e or

gani

satio

n of

the

proc

edur

e ar

e no

t co

vere

d by

that

pro

visio

n.

Para

s. 5

6-58

: 56

. Acc

ordi

ngly,

the

abse

nce

of a

rem

edy

at th

at st

age

of th

e pr

oced

ure

does

not

con

stitu

te a

n in

frin

gem

ent o

f the

righ

t to

an e

ffecti

ve

rem

edy,

prov

ided

, how

ever

, tha

t the

lega

lity

of th

e fin

al d

ecisi

on a

dopt

ed in

an

acce

lera

ted

proc

edur

e

and

, in

parti

cula

r, th

e re

ason

s whi

ch le

d th

e co

mpe

tent

aut

horit

y to

reje

ct th

e ap

plic

ation

for a

sylu

m a

s unf

ound

ed

may

be

the

subj

ect o

f a th

orou

gh re

view

by

the

natio

nal c

ourt

, with

in th

e fr

amew

ork

of a

n ac

tion

agai

nst t

he d

ecisi

on re

jecti

ng th

e ap

plic

ation

.

57. A

s reg

ards

judi

cial

revi

ew w

ithin

the

fram

ewor

k of

a su

bsta

ntive

acti

on a

gain

st th

e de

cisio

n re

jecti

ng th

e ap

plic

ation

for i

nter

natio

nal p

rote

ction

, th

e eff

ectiv

enes

s of t

hat a

ction

wou

ld n

ot b

e gu

aran

teed

if

bec

ause

of t

he im

poss

ibili

ty o

f brin

ging

an

appe

al u

nder

Arti

cle

20(5

) of t

he la

w o

f 5 M

ay

2006

th

e re

ason

s whi

ch le

d th

e M

inist

er fo

r Lab

our,

Empl

oym

ent a

nd Im

mig

ratio

n to

exa

min

e th

e m

erits

of t

he a

pplic

ation

und

er a

n ac

cele

rate

d pr

oced

ure

coul

d no

t be

the

subj

ect o

f jud

icia

l rev

iew

. In

a sit

uatio

n su

ch a

s tha

t at i

ssue

in th

e m

ain

proc

eedi

ngs,

the

reas

ons r

elie

d on

by

that

min

ister

in

orde

r to

use

the

acce

lera

ted

proc

edur

e ar

e in

fact

the

sam

e as

thos

e w

hich

led

to th

at a

pplic

ation

bei

ng re

ject

ed. S

uch

a sit

uatio

n w

ould

rend

er re

view

of

the

lega

lity

of th

e de

cisio

n im

poss

ible

, as r

egar

ds b

oth

the

fact

s and

the

law

[].

58. W

hat i

s im

port

ant,

ther

efor

e, is

that

the

reas

ons j

ustif

ying

the

use

of a

n ac

cele

rate

d pr

oced

ure

may

be

effec

tivel

y ch

alle

nged

at a

late

r sta

ge b

efor

e th

e na

tiona

l cou

rt a

nd re

view

ed b

y it

with

in th

e fr

amew

ork

of th

e ac

tion

that

may

be

brou

ght a

gain

st th

e fin

al d

ecisi

on c

losin

g th

e pr

oced

ure

rela

ting

to th

e ap

plic

ation

for a

sylu

m. I

t wou

ld n

ot b

e co

mpa

tible

with

EU

law

if n

ation

al ru

les s

uch

as th

ose

deriv

ing

from

Arti

cle

20(5

) of t

he la

w o

f 5 M

ay 2

006

wer

e to

be

cons

true

d as

pre

clud

ing

all j

udic

ial r

evie

w o

f the

reas

ons w

hich

led

the

com

pete

nt a

dmin

istra

tive

auth

ority

to e

xam

ine

the

appl

icati

on fo

r as

ylum

und

er a

n ac

cele

rate

d pr

oced

ure.

Wils

on [2

006]

, Cas

e C-

506/

04 E

CR I-

8613

, pa

ragr

aphs

60-

62.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=108325&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1016512http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=108325&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1016512http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=108325&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1016512http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=108325&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1016512

9Compilation of jurisprudence: Asylum procedures and the principle of non-refoulement

Cour

tCa

se n

ame/

re

fere

nce/

date

Rele

vanc

e/ke

y w

ords

/mai

n po

ints

Case

s cite

d

Para

s. 6

2-69

: 62

. With

rega

rd to

the

time

limits

for b

ringi

ng p

roce

edin

gs a

nd th

e po

ssib

ility

of t

wo

leve

ls of

juris

dicti

on, t

he re

ferr

ing

cour

t poi

nts t

o th

e di

ffere

nces

bet

wee

n th

e ac

cele

rate

d pr

oced

ure

and

the

ordi

nary

pro

cedu

re fo

r dea

ling

with

an

appl

icati

on fo

r asy

lum

. In

parti

cula

r, it

draw

s atte

ntion

to

the

fact

that

the

actio

n ag

ains

t the

fina

l dec

ision

mus

t be

brou

ght w

ithin

a p

erio

d of

15

days

from

noti

ficati

on o

f tha

t dec

ision

, as o

ppos

ed to

with

in

1 m

onth

in th

e ca

se o

f the

ord

inar

y pr

oced

ure,

and

that

the

deci

sions

of t

he T

ribun

al a

dmin

istra

tif ta

ken

in re

latio

n to

an

acce

lera

ted

proc

edur

e ar

e no

t op

en to

app

eal.

63. T

he g

over

nmen

ts th

at h

ave

subm

itted

obs

erva

tions

and

the

Com

miss

ion

mai

ntai

n th

at a

sing

le c

ourt

acti

on sa

tisfie

s the

min

imum

requ

ired

by th

e pr

inci

ple

that

effe

ctive

judi

cial

pro

tecti

on sh

ould

be

guar

ante

ed a

nd su

bmit

that

a 1

5-da

y tim

e lim

it, in

this

inst

ance

, doe

s not

am

ount

to a

n in

frin

gem

ent

of th

at p

rinci

ple,

eith

er fr

om th

e po

int o

f vie

w o

f the

cas

e-la

w o

f the

Eur

opea

n Co

urt o

f Hum

an R

ight

s or t

hat o

f the

Cou

rt o

f Jus

tice.

64. I

t sho

uld

be d

eter

min

ed w

heth

er E

U la

w p

recl

udes

nati

onal

rule

s suc

h as

thos

e at

issu

e in

the

mai

n pr

ocee

ding

s ins

ofar

as t

he se

lecti

on o

f an

acce

lera

ted

proc

edur

e in

stea

d of

the

ordi

nary

pro

cedu

re e

ntai

ls di

ffere

nces

the

effec

t of w

hich

is, i

n es

senc

e, th

at a

less

favo

urab

le tr

eatm

ent i

s res

erve

d fo

r the

app

lican

t for

asy

lum

as r

egar

ds th

e rig

ht to

an

effec

tive

rem

edy,

since

the

appl

ican

t has

onl

y 15

day

s with

in w

hich

to b

ring

an a

ction

and

doe

s not

ha

ve th

e be

nefit

of t

wo

leve

ls of

juris

dicti

on.

65. I

n th

at re

gard

, it m

ust b

e st

ated

at t

he o

utse

t tha

t the

diff

eren

ces t

hat e

xist

, in

the

natio

nal r

ules

, bet

wee

n th

e ac

cele

rate

d pr

oced

ure

and

the

ordi

nary

pro

cedu

re, t

he e

ffect

of w

hich

is th

at th

e tim

e lim

it fo

r brin

ging

an

actio

n is

shor

tene

d an

d th

at th

ere

is on

ly o

ne le

vel o

f jur

isdic

tion,

are

co

nnec

ted

with

the

natu

re o

f the

pro

cedu

re p

ut in

pla

ce. T

he p

rovi

sions

at i

ssue

in th

e m

ain

proc

eedi

ngs a

re in

tend

ed to

ens

ure

that

unf

ound

ed o

r in

adm

issib

le a

pplic

ation

s for

asy

lum

are

pro

cess

ed m

ore

quic

kly,

in o

rder

that

app

licati

ons s

ubm

itted

by

pers

ons w

ho h

ave

good

gro

unds

for b

enefi

ting

from

refu

gee

stat

us m

ay b

e pr

oces

sed

mor

e effi

cien

tly.

66. A

s reg

ards

the

fact

that

the

time

limit

for b

ringi

ng a

n ac

tion

is 15

day

s in

the

case

of a

n ac

cele

rate

d pr

oced

ure,

whi

lst it

is 1

mon

th in

the

case

of

a de

cisio

n ad

opte

d un

der t

he o

rdin

ary

proc

edur

e, th

e im

port

ant p

oint

, as t

he a

dvoc

ate-

gene

ral h

as st

ated

in p

oint

63

of h

is op

inio

n, is

that

the

perio

d pr

escr

ibed

mus

t be

suffi

cien

t in

prac

tical

term

s to

enab

le th

e ap

plic

ant t

o pr

epar

e an

d br

ing

an e

ffecti

ve a

ction

.

67. W

ith re

gard

to a

bbre

viat

ed p

roce

dure

s, a

15-

day

time

limit

for b

ringi

ng a

n ac

tion

does

not

seem

, gen

eral

ly, to

be

insu

ffici

ent i

n pr

actic

al te

rms t

o pr

epar

e an

d br

ing

an e

ffecti

ve a

ction

and

app

ears

reas

onab

le a

nd p

ropo

rtion

ate

in re

latio

n to

the

right

s and

inte

rest

s inv

olve

d.

68. I

t is,

how

ever

, for

the

natio

nal c

ourt

to d

eter

min

e

shou

ld th

at ti

me

limit

prov

e, in

a g

iven

situ

ation

, to

be in

suffi

cien

t in

view

of t

he

circ

umst

ance

s w

heth

er th

at e

lem

ent i

s suc

h as

to ju

stify

, on

its o

wn,

uph

oldi

ng th

e ac

tion

brou

ght i

ndire

ctly

aga

inst

the

deci

sion

to e

xam

ine

the

appl

icati

on fo

r asy

lum

und

er a

n ac

cele

rate

d pr

oced

ure,

so th

at, i

n up

hold

ing

the

actio

n, th

e na

tiona

l cou

rt w

ould

ord

er th

at th

e ap

plic

ation

be

exam

ined

un

der t

he o

rdin

ary

proc

edur

e.

69. A

s reg

ards

the

fact

that

the

appl

ican

t for

asy

lum

has

the

bene

fit o

f tw

o le

vels

of ju

risdi

ction

onl

y in

rela

tion

to a

dec

ision

ado

pted

und

er th

e or

dina

ry

proc

edur

e, D

irecti

ve 2

005/

85/E

C do

es n

ot re

quire

ther

e to

be

two

leve

ls of

juris

dicti

on. A

ll th

at m

atter

s is t

hat t

here

shou

ld b

e a

rem

edy

befo

re a

judi

cial

bo

dy, a

s is g

uara

ntee

d by

Arti

cle

39 o

f Dire

ctive

200

5/85

/EC.

The

prin

cipl

e of

effe

ctive

judi

cial

pro

tecti

on a

fford

s an

indi

vidu

al a

righ

t of a

cces

s to

a co

urt

or tr

ibun

al b

ut n

ot to

a n

umbe

r of l

evel

s of j

urisd

ictio

n.

10 Compilation of jurisprudence: Asylum procedures and theprinciple of non-refoulement

Cour

tCa

se n

ame/

re

fere

nce/

date

Rele

vanc

e/ke

y w

ords

/mai

n po

ints

Case

s cite

d

CJEU

(G

rand

Ch

ambe

r)

N.S

. v S

ecre

tary

of

Sta

te fo

r the

Ho

me

Depa

rtm

ent

and

M.E

.and

O

ther

s v R

efug

ee

Appl

icati

ons

Com

miss

ione

r, M

inist

er fo

r Jus

tice,

Eq

ualit

y an

d La

w

Refo

rm, J

oine

d Ca

ses C

-411

/10

and

C-49

3/10

, EU

:C:2

011:

865.

21.1

2.20

11

Judg

men

t afte

r a re

fere

nce

for a

pre

limin

ary

rulin

g fr

om th

e Co

urt o

f App

eal (

Engl

and

and

Wal

es) (

civi

l div

ision

) (U

nite

d Ki

ngdo

m) a

nd th

e Hi

gh C

ourt

(Ir

elan

d) re

latin

g to

the

crite

ria a

nd m

echa

nism

s for

det

erm

inin

g th

e M

embe

r Sta

te re

spon

sible

for e

xam

inin

g an

asy

lum

app

licati

on lo

dged

in o

ne o

f the

M

embe

r Sta

tes b

y a

third

-cou

ntry

nati

onal

.

Com

mon

Eur

opea

n As

ylum

Sys

tem

R

egul

ation

(EC)

No

343/

2003

tr

ansf

er o

f an

asyl

um se

eker

to th

e M

embe

r Sta

te re

spon

sible

c

once

pt o

f sa

fe

coun

trie

s.

Para

. 69:

th

e de

cisio

n by

a M

embe

r Sta

te o

n th

e ba

sis o

f Arti

cle

3(2)

of R

egul

ation

No

343/

2003

whe

ther

to e

xam

ine

an a

sylu

m a

pplic

ation

whi

ch is

no

t its

resp

onsib

ility

acc

ordi

ng to

the

crite

ria la

id d

own

in C

hapt

er II

I of t

hat r

egul

ation

, im

plem

ents

Eur

opea

n U

nion

law

for t

he p

urpo

ses o

f Arti

cle

6 TE

U (2

) and

/or A

rticl

e 51

of t

he c

hart

er.

Para

. 108

: Th

e M

embe

r Sta

te in

whi

ch th

e as

ylum

seek

er is

pre

sent

mus

t, ho

wev

er, e

nsur

e th

at it

doe

s not

wor

sen

a sit

uatio

n w

here

the

fund

amen

tal

right

s of t

hat a

pplic

ant h

ave

been

infr

inge

d by

usin

g a

proc

edur

e fo

r det

erm

inin

g th

e M

embe

r Sta

te re

spon

sible

, whi

ch ta

kes a

n un

reas

onab

le le

ngth

of

time.

If n

eces

sary

, the

firs

t men

tione

d M

embe

r Sta

te m

ust i

tsel

f exa

min

e th

e ap

plic

ation

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e pr

oced

ure

laid

dow

n in

Arti

cle

3(2)

of

Regu

latio

n N

o 34

3/20

03.

Para

s. 1

17-1

21:

117.

As n

oted

by

the

EHRC

(3),

that

que

stion

aris

es b

ecau

se o

f the

pos

ition

take

n by

the

Secr

etar

y of

Sta

te b

efor

e th

e Hi

gh C

ourt

of

Justi

ce (E

ngla

nd a

nd W

ales

) (Ad

min

istra

tive

Cour

t) th

at th

e pr

ovisi

ons o

f the

cha

rter

do

not a

pply

in th

e U

nite

d Ki

ngdo

m.

118.

Eve

n if

the

Secr

etar

y of

Sta

te n

o lo

nger

mai

ntai

ned

that

pos

ition

bef

ore

the

Cour

t of A

ppea

l (En

glan

d an

d W

ales

) (ci

vil d

ivisi

on),

it m

ust b

e no

ted

that

Pro

toco

l (N

o 30

) pro

vide

s, in

Arti

cle

1(1)

, tha

t the

cha

rter

is n

ot to

ext

end

the

abili

ty o

f the

Cou

rt o

f Jus

tice

or a

ny c

ourt

or t

ribun

al o

f Pol

and

or o

f th

e U

nite

d Ki

ngdo

m to

find

that

the

law

s, re

gula

tions

adm

inist

rativ

e pr

ovisi

ons,

pra

ctice

s or a

ction

of P

olan

d or

of t

he U

nite

d Ki

ngdo

m a

re in

cons

isten

t w

ith th

e fu

ndam

enta

l rig

hts,

free

dom

s and

prin

cipl

es th

at it

affi

rms.

119.

Acc

ordi

ng to

the

wor

ding

of t

hat p

rovi

sion,

as n

oted

by

the

advo

cate

-gen

eral

in p

oint

s 169

and

170

of h

er o

pini

on in

Cas

e C-

411/

10, P

roto

col

(No

30) d

oes n

ot c

all i

nto

ques

tion

the

appl

icab

ility

of t

he c

hart

er in

the

Uni

ted

King

dom

or i

n Po

land

, a p

ositi

on w

hich

is c

onfir

med

by

the

reci

tals

in

the

prea

mbl

e to

that

pro

toco

l. Th

us, a

ccor

ding

to th

e th

ird re

cita

l in

the

prea

mbl

e to

Pro

toco

l (N

o 30

), Ar

ticle

6 T

EU re

quire

s the

cha

rter

to b

e ap

plie

d an

d in

terp

rete

d by

the

cour

ts o

f Pol

and

and

of th

e U

nite

d Ki

ngdo

m st

rictly

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e ex

plan

ation

s ref

erre

d to

in th

at a

rticl

e. In

add

ition

, ac

cord

ing

to th

e six

th re

cita

l in

the

prea

mbl

e to

that

pro

toco

l, th

e ch

arte

r rea

ffirm

s the

righ

ts, f

reed

oms a

nd p

rinci

ples

reco

gnise

d in

the

Uni

on a

nd

mak

es th

ose

right

s mor

e vi

sible

, but

doe

s not

cre

ate

new

righ

ts o

r prin

cipl

es.

120.

In th

ose

circ

umst

ance

s, A

rticl

e 1(

1) o

f Pro

toco

l (N

o 30

) exp

lain

s Arti

cle

51 o

f the

cha

rter

with

rega

rd to

the

scop

e th

ereo

f and

doe

s not

inte

nd to

ex

empt

Pol

and

or th

e U

nite

d Ki

ngdo

m fr

om th

e ob

ligati

on to

com

ply

with

the

prov

ision

s of t

he c

hart

er o

r to

prev

ent a

cou

rt o

f one

of t

hose

Mem

ber

Stat

es fr

om e

nsur

ing

com

plia

nce

with

thos

e pr

ovisi

ons.

121.

Sin

ce th

e rig

hts r

efer

red

to in

the

case

s in

the

mai

n pr

ocee

ding

s do

not f

orm

par

t of T

itle

IV o

f the

cha

rter

, the

re is

no

need

to ru

le o

n th

e in

terp

reta

tion

of A

rticl

e 1(

2) o

f Pro

toco

l (N

o 30

).

(2 ) T

reat

y on

Eur

opea

n U

nion

.(3 )

Equ

ality

and

Hum

an R

ight

s Com

miss

ion.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=117187&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1018338http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=117187&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1018338http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=117187&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1018338http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=117187&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1018338http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=117187&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1018338http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=117187&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1018338http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=117187&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1018338http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=117187&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1018338http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=117187&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1018338http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=117187&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1018338

11Compilation of jurisprudence: Asylum procedures and the principle of non-refoulement

Cour

tCa

se n

ame/

re

fere

nce/

date

Rele

vanc

e/ke

y w

ords

/mai

n po

ints

Case

s cite

d

CJEU

Mig

ratio

nsve

rket

v

Nur

ije K

astr

ati,

Vald

rina

Kast

rati

and

Oth

ers,

Ca

se C

-620

/10,

EU

:C:2

012:

265.

3.5.

2012

Judg

men

t afte

r a re

fere

nce

for a

pre

limin

ary

rulin

g fr

om th

e Ka

mm

arr

tten

i Sto

ckho

lm

Mig

ratio

nsv

erdo

mst

olen

(Sw

eden

) rel

ating

to a

n as

ylum

ap

plic

ation

bei

ng lo

dged

in a

Mem

ber S

tate

oth

er th

an th

e st

ate

resp

onsib

le b

ut th

en w

ithdr

awn.

With

draw

al o

f asy

lum

app

licati

on

prio

r to

acce

ptan

ce o

f tak

e ch

arge

requ

est

Dub

lin ru

les n

o lo

nger

app

licab

le.

Para

. 45:

in

prin

cipl

e ex

haus

tivel

y, th

e sit

uatio

ns in

whi

ch th

e ob

ligati

ons o

n th

e M

embe

r Sta

te re

spon

sible

for e

xam

inin

g an

asy

lum

app

licati

on to

ta

ke c

harg

e o

r ta

ke b

ack

an

appl

ican

t who

has

lodg

ed a

n as

ylum

app

licati

on in

a M

embe

r Sta

te o

ther

than

the

stat

e re

spon

sible

may

cea

se. H

owev

er,

they

pre

supp

ose

the

exist

ence

of a

n as

ylum

app

licati

on w

hich

the

Mem

ber S

tate

resp

onsib

le m

ust e

xam

ine,

is in

the

proc

ess o

f exa

min

ing

or o

n w

hich

it

has a

lread

y ta

ken

a de

cisio

n.

Para

. 47:

th

e w

ithdr

awal

of a

n as

ylum

app

licati

on w

hich

occ

urs i

n ci

rcum

stan

ces s

uch

as th

ose

in th

e m

ain

proc

eedi

ngs i

n th

e pr

esen

t cas

e, th

at is

to

say

befo

re th

e re

ques

ted

Mem

ber S

tate

has

agr

eed

to ta

ke c

harg

e of

the

asyl

um se

eker

, has

the

effec

t tha

t Reg

ulati

on N

o 34

3/20

03 c

an n

o lo

nger

be

appl

icab

le.

CJEU

H. I.

D. a

nd B

. A.

v Re

fuge

e Ap

plic

ation

s Co

mm

issio

ner

and

Oth

ers,

Ca

se C

-175

/11,

EU

:C:2

013:

45.

31.1

.201

3

Judg

men

t afte

r a re

fere

nce

for a

pre

limin

ary

rulin

g fr

om th

e Hi

gh C

ourt

(Ire

land

) con

cern

ing

the

inte

rpre

tatio

n of

Arti

cles

23

and

39 o

f Cou

ncil

Dire

ctive

20

05/8

5/EC

of 1

Dec

embe

r 200

5 on

min

imum

stan

dard

s on

proc

edur

es in

Mem

ber S

tate

s for

gra

nting

and

with

draw

ing

refu

gee

stat

us.

Dire

ctive

200

5/85

/EC

A

rticl

e 23

p

ossib

ility

of p

rioriti

sing

the

proc

essin

g of

asy

lum

app

licati

ons

righ

t to

an e

ffecti

ve ju

dici

al re

med

y.

Para

s. 7

2-73

: 72

. In

addi

tion,

as a

ppea

rs fr

om re

cita

l 17

in th

e pr

eam

ble

to D

irecti

ve 2

005/

85/E

C, th

e Eu

rope

an U

nion

legi

slatu

re in

trod

uced

the

conc

ept

of s

afe

coun

try

of o

rigin

ac

cord

ing

to w

hich

, whe

n a

third

cou

ntry

may

be

rega

rded

as s

afe,

Mem

ber S

tate

s sho

uld

be a

ble

to d

esig

nate

it a

s saf

e an

d pr

esum

e th

at a

par

ticul

ar a

pplic

ant w

ill b

e sa

fe th

ere.

The

Eur

opea

n U

nion

legi

slatu

re th

eref

ore

prov

ided

und

er A

rticl

e 23

(4)(c

) of t

hat d

irecti

ve

that

Mem

ber S

tate

s may

dec

ide

that

an

exam

inati

on p

roce

dure

be

prio

ritise

d or

acc

eler

ated

in th

e ca

se w

here

the

asyl

um a

pplic

ation

is c

onsid

ered

un

foun

ded

beca

use

the

appl

ican

t is f

rom

a sa

fe c

ount

ry o

f orig

in w

ithin

the

term

s of t

hat d

irecti

ve.

73. I

t fol

low

s, a

s the

adv

ocat

e-ge

nera

l has

not

ed in

poi

nt 6

7 of

his

opin

ion,

that

the

natio

nalit

y of

the

appl

ican

t for

asy

lum

is a

n el

emen

t whi

ch m

ay b

e ta

ken

into

con

sider

ation

to ju

stify

the

prio

ritise

d or

acc

eler

ated

pro

cess

ing

of a

n as

ylum

app

licati

on.

Para

. 84:

It i

s com

mon

gro

und,

rega

rd b

eing

had

to th

e ob

serv

ation

s sub

mitt

ed to

the

Cour

t bot

h by

the

appl

ican

ts in

the

mai

n pr

ocee

ding

s and

by

the

Mem

ber S

tate

s and

the

insti

tutio

ns, t

hat t

he R

efug

ee A

ppea

ls Tr

ibun

al m

eets

the

crite

ria o

f est

ablis

hmen

t by

law,

per

man

ence

and

app

licati

on o

f rul

es o

f la

w.

Para

s. 8

9-91

: 89

. In

that

rega

rd, t

he O

RAC

s (4 )

parti

cipa

tion

as a

par

ty to

the

appe

al p

roce

edin

gs b

efor

e th

e Re

fuge

e Ap

peal

s Trib

unal

to d

efen

d th

e de

cisio

n ta

ken

at fi

rst i

nsta

nce

is no

t an

abso

lute

requ

irem

ent.

90. B

y co

ntra

st, i

t is i

mpo

rtan

t to

note

that

Sec

tion

16(5

) of t

he re

fuge

e ac

t pro

vide

s tha

t the

Ref

ugee

App

licati

ons C

omm

issio

ner m

ust p

rovi

de to

the

Refu

gee

Appe

als T

ribun

al c

opie

s of a

ll re

port

s, d

ocum

ents

or r

epre

sent

ation

s in

writi

ng su

bmitt

ed to

him

und

er S

ectio

n 11

of t

hat a

ct a

s wel

l as a

writt

en

indi

catio

n of

the

natu

re a

nd so

urce

of a

ny o

ther

info

rmati

on c

once

rnin

g th

e ap

plic

ation

of w

hich

he

has b

ecom

e aw

are

in th

e co

urse

of h

is in

vesti

gatio

n.

In a

ccor

danc

e w

ith S

ectio

n 16

(8),

the

Refu

gee

Appe

als T

ribun

al p

rovi

des t

he a

pplic

ant a

nd h

is so

licito

r as w

ell a

s the

Uni

ted

Nati

ons H

igh

Com

miss

ione

r fo

r Ref

ugee

s, a

t its

requ

est,

with

cop

ies o

f tho

se d

ocum

ents

.

91. F

urth

erm

ore,

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith S

ectio

n 16

(10)

and

(11)

(a) a

nd (c

) of t

he re

fuge

e ac

t, th

e Re

fuge

e Ap

peal

s Trib

unal

may

also

hol

d a

hear

ing

durin

g w

hich

it m

ay d

irect

any

per

son

who

se e

vide

nce

is re

quire

d to

atte

nd, a

nd h

ear b

oth

the

appl

ican

t and

the

Refu

gee

Appl

icati

ons C

omm

issio

ner p

rese

nt

thei

r cas

e in

per

son

or th

roug

h a

lega

l rep

rese

ntati

ve. A

s a c

onse

quen

ce, e

ach

part

y ha

s the

opp

ortu

nity

to m

ake

the

Refu

gee

Appe

als T

ribun

al a

war

e of

an

y in

form

ation

nec

essa

ry to

the

succ

ess o

f the

app

licati

on fo

r asy

lum

or t

o th

e de

fenc

e.

Para

. 93:

It f

ollo

ws t

hat t

he R

efug

ee A

ppea

ls Tr

ibun

al h

as a

bro

ad d

iscre

tion,

sinc

e it

take

s cog

nisa

nce

of b

oth

ques

tions

of f

act a

nd q

uesti

ons o

f law

and

ru

les o

n th

e ev

iden

ce su

bmitt

ed to

it, i

n re

latio

n to

whi

ch it

enj

oys a

disc

retio

n.

(4 ) O

ffice

of t

he R

efug

ee A

pplic

ation

s Com

miss

ione

r.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=122392&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1013166http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=122392&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1013166http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=122392&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1013166http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=122392&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1013166http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=133247&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1016712http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=133247&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1016712http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=133247&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1016712http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=133247&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1016712http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=133247&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1016712

12 Compilation of jurisprudence: Asylum procedures and theprinciple of non-refoulement

Cour

tCa

se n

ame/

re

fere

nce/

date

Rele

vanc

e/ke

y w

ords

/mai

n po

ints

Case

s cite

d

Para

s. 9

7-10

1: 9

7. T

he C

ourt

has

also

stat

ed th

at su

ch g

uara

ntee

s of i

ndep

ende

nce

and

impa

rtial

ity re

quire

rule

s, p

artic

ular

ly a

s reg

ards

the

com

positi

on

of th

e bo

dy a

nd th

e ap

poin

tmen

t, le

ngth

of s

ervi

ce a

nd th

e gr

ound

s for

abs

tenti

on, r

ejec

tion

and

dism

issal

of i

ts m

embe

rs, i

n or

der t

o di

spel

any

re

ason

able

dou

bt in

the

min

ds o

f ind

ivid

uals

as to

the

impe

rvio

usne

ss o

f tha

t bod

y to

ext

erna

l fac

tors

and

its n

eutr

ality

with

resp

ect t

o th

e in

tere

sts

befo

re it

. In

that

rega

rd, i

n or

der t

o co

nsid

er th

e co

nditi

on re

gard

ing

the

inde

pend

ence

of t

he b

ody

mak

ing

the

refe

renc

e as

met

, the

cas

e-la

w re

quire

s,

inte

r alia

, tha

t dism

issal

s of m

embe

rs o

f tha

t bod

y sh

ould

be

dete

rmin

ed b

y ex

pres

s leg

islati

ve p

rovi

sions

(see

ord

er in

Cas

e C-

109/

07 P

ilato

[200

8] E

CR

I-350

3, p

arag

raph

24

and

the

case

-law

cite

d).

98. I

n th

e pr

esen

t cas

e, S

ectio

n 15

(2) o

f the

refu

gee

act p

rovi

des t

hat t

he R

efug

ee A

ppea

ls Tr

ibun

al is

inde

pend

ent i

n th

e pe

rfor

man

ce o

f its

func

tions

. In

add

ition

, tho

ugh

the

min

ister

reta

ins r

esid

ual d

iscre

tion

to g

rant

refu

gee

stat

us d

espi

te a

neg

ative

dec

ision

on

an a

sylu

m a

pplic

ation

, it s

houl

d be

no

ted

that

, whe

re th

e Re

fuge

e Ap

peal

s Trib

unal

find

s in

favo

ur o

f the

app

lican

t for

asy

lum

, the

min

ister

is b

ound

by

the

deci

sion

of th

at tr

ibun

al a

nd is

th

eref

ore

not e

mpo

wer

ed to

revi

ew it

.

99. A

s for

the

rule

s gov

erni

ng th

e ap

poin

tmen

t of m

embe

rs o

f the

Ref

ugee

App

eals

Trib

unal

, the

se a

re n

ot c

apab

le o

f cal

ling

into

que

stion

the

inde

pend

ence

of t

hat t

ribun

al. T

he m

embe

rs o

f the

trib

unal

are

app

oint

ed fo

r a sp

ecifi

c te

rm fr

om a

mon

g pe

rson

s with

at l

east

5 y

ears

exp

erie

nce

as

a pr

actis

ing

barr

ister

or a

pra

ctisin

g so

licito

r, an

d th

e ci

rcum

stan

ces o

f the

ir ap

poin

tmen

t by

the

min

ister

do

not d

iffer

subs

tanti

ally

from

the

prac

tice

in

man

y ot

her M

embe

r Sta

tes.

100.

With

rega

rd to

the

issue

of t

he re

mov

al o

f mem

bers

of t

he R

efug

ee A

ppea

ls Tr

ibun

al, i

t fol

low

s fro

m p

arag

raph

7 o

f the

seco

nd sc

hedu

le to

the

refu

gee

act t

hat t

he o

rdin

ary

mem

bers

of t

hat t

ribun

al m

ay b

e re

mov

ed fr

om o

ffice

by

the

min

ister

. The

min

ister

s de

cisio

n m

ust s

tate

the

reas

ons f

or

such

rem

oval

.

101.

As n

oted

by

the

advo

cate

-gen

eral

at p

oint

88

of h

is op

inio

n, th

e ca

ses i

n w

hich

the

mem

bers

of t

he R

efug

ee A

ppea

ls Tr

ibun

al m

ay b

e re

mov

ed fr

om

office

are

not

defi

ned

prec

isely

by

the

refu

gee

act.

Nor

doe

s the

refu

gee

act s

peci

fy w

heth

er th

e de

cisio

n to

rem

ove

a m

embe

r of t

he R

efug

ee A

ppea

ls Tr

ibun

al is

am

enab

le to

judi

cial

revi

ew.

Para

. 103

: In

the

pres

ent c

ase,

und

er S

ectio

n 5

of th

e Ill

egal

Imm

igra

nts (

Traffi

ckin

g) A

ct 2

000,

app

lican

ts fo

r asy

lum

may

also

que

stion

the

valid

ity o

f re

com

men

datio

ns o

f the

Ref

ugee

App

licati

ons C

omm

issio

ner a

nd d

ecisi

ons o

f the

Ref

ugee

App

eals

Trib

unal

bef

ore

the

High

Cou

rt, t

he d

ecisi

ons o

f w

hich

may

be

appe

aled

to th

e Su

prem

e Co

urt.

The

exist

ence

of t

hese

mea

ns o

f obt

aini

ng re

dres

s app

ear,

in th

emse

lves

, to

be c

apab

le o

f pro

tecti

ng

the

Refu

gee

Appe

als T

ribun

al a

gain

st p

oten

tial t

empt

ation

s to

give

in to

ext

erna

l int

erve

ntion

or p

ress

ure

liabl

e to

jeop

ardi

se th

e in

depe

nden

ce o

f its

m

embe

rs.

CJEU

The

Que

en, o

n th

e ap

plic

ation

of M

A an

d O

ther

s v S

ecre

tary

of

Stat

e fo

r the

Hom

e De

part

men

t, Ca

se

C-64

8/11

,

EU:C

:201

3:36

7.

6.6.

2013

Judg

men

t afte

r a re

fere

nce

for a

pre

limin

ary

rulin

g fr

om th

e Co

urt o

f App

eal (

Engl

and

and

Wal

es) (

civi

l div

ision

) (U

nite

d Ki

ngdo

m) r

elati

ng to

un

acco

mpa

nied

min

ors.

Una

ccom

pani

ed m

inor

re

spon

sible

Mem

ber S

tate

is w

here

a si

blin

g or

fam

ily m

embe

r is l

egal

ly p

rese

nt.

Para

s. 4

6-48

: 46

. The

firs

t of t

he c

riter

ia e

stab

lishe

d in

Cha

pter

III o

f Reg

ulati

on N

o 34

3/20

03 is

that

laid

dow

n in

Arti

cle

6, w

hich

serv

es to

det

erm

ine

the

Mem

ber S

tate

resp

onsib

le fo

r exa

min

ing

an a

pplic

ation

lodg

ed b

y an

una

ccom

pani

ed m

inor

with

in th

e m

eani

ng o

f Arti

cle

2(h)

of t

hat r

egul

ation

.

47. A

s pro

vide

d in

the

first

par

agra

ph o

f Arti

cle

6, th

e M

embe

r Sta

te re

spon

sible

for e

xam

inin

g an

app

licati

on lo

dged

by

an u

nacc

ompa

nied

min

or is

to b

e th

at w

here

a m

embe

r of h

is fa

mily

is le

gally

pre

sent

, pro

vide

d th

at th

is is

in th

e be

st in

tere

st o

f the

min

or.

48. I

n th

e pr

esen

t cas

e it

is ap

pare

nt fr

om th

e or

der f

or re

fere

nce

that

no

mem

ber o

f the

fam

ilies

of t

he a

ppel

lant

s in

the

mai

n pr

ocee

ding

s is l

egal

ly

pres

ent i

n a

Mem

ber S

tate

, and

the

Mem

ber S

tate

resp

onsib

le m

ust t

here

fore

be

desig

nate

d on

the

basis

of t

he se

cond

par

agra

ph o

f Arti

cle

6 of

Re

gula

tion

No

343/

2003

, whi

ch p

rovi

des t

hat r

espo

nsib

ility

is to

lie

with

the

Mem

ber S

tate

w

here

the

min

or h

as lo

dged

his

or h

er a

pplic

ation

for

asyl

um.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=138088&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1013027http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=138088&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1013027http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=138088&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1013027http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=138088&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1013027http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=138088&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1013027

13Compilation of jurisprudence: Asylum procedures and the principle of non-refoulement

Cour

tCa

se n

ame/

re

fere

nce/

date

Rele

vanc

e/ke

y w

ords

/mai

n po

ints

Case

s cite

d

CJEU

(G

rand

Ch

ambe

r)

Euro

pean

Com

miss

ion

and

Oth

ers v

Yas

sin

Abdu

llah

Kadi

, Joi

ned

Case

s C-5

84/1

0 P,

C-

593/

10 P

and

C-

595/

10 P,

EU

:C:2

013:

518.

18.7

.201

3

Judg

men

t afte

r a re

fere

nce

for a

pre

limin

ary

rulin

g fr

om th

e Eu

rope

an C

omm

issio

n, th

e Co

unci

l of t

he E

urop

ean

Uni

on a

nd th

e U

nite

d Ki

ngdo

m o

f Gre

at

Brita

in a

nd N

orth

ern

Irela

nd.

Fund

amen

tal r

ight

s ri

ght t

o eff

ectiv

e ju

dici

al p

rote

ction

re

spec

t for

the

right

s of t

he d

efen

ce.

Para

s. 9

7-98

: 97

. As s

tate

d by

the

Gene

ral C

ourt

in p

arag

raph

s 125

, 126

and

171

of t

he ju

dgm

ent u

nder

app

eal,

the

Cour

t hel

d, in

par

agra

ph 3

26 o

f [

], th

at th

e co

urts

of t

he E

urop

ean

Uni

on m

ust,

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e po

wer

s con

ferr

ed o

n th

em b

y th

e tr

eatie

s, e

nsur

e th

e re

view

, in

prin

cipl

e th

e fu

ll re

view

, of t

he la

wfu

lnes

s of a

ll U

nion

act

s in

the

light

of t

he fu

ndam

enta

l rig

hts f

orm

ing

an in

tegr

al p

art o

f the

Eur

opea

n U

nion

lega

l ord

er, i

nclu

ding

re

view

of s

uch

mea

sure

s as a

re d

esig

ned

to g

ive

effec

t to

reso

lutio

ns a

dopt

ed b

y th

e Se

curit

y Co

unci

l und

er C

hapt

er V

II of

the

Char

ter o

f the

Uni

ted

Nati

ons [

].

That

obl

igati

on is

exp

ress

ly la

id d

own

by th

e se

cond

par

agra

ph o

f Arti

cle

275

TFEU

(5).

98. T

hose

fund

amen

tal r

ight

s inc

lude

, int

er a

lia, r

espe

ct fo

r the

righ

ts o

f the

def

ence

and

the

right

to e

ffecti

ve ju

dici

al p

rote

ction

.

Para

s. 1

11-1

19:

111.

In p

roce

edin

gs re

latin

g to

the

adop

tion

of th

e d