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.

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 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

scholarly journals The Principle of Mutual Trust in EU Law and Policy

2021 ◽  
Vol 106 (6) ◽  
pp. 144-154
Author(s):  
Vadim Voynikov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

Mutual trust is one of the central principles of the area of freedom, security and justice and the whole EU. Despite the fact, that mutual trust is not stipulated in founding treaties, this principle has been widely developed by the European Court of Justice. The purpose of this article is to identify the legal and political components of mutual trust in the EU, as well as the approaches to its implementation. The author comes to the conclusion that the principle of mutual trust originated from the internal market, however its development is mostly associated with the area of freedom, security and justice. Mutual trust in the EU presupposes that a member state does not need additional verification that another member state respects Union law and fundamental rights. Initially, the principle of mutual trust was given the absolute character, but in the post-Lisbon period, “blind trust” was replaced by the “earned trust”, which implies the possibility, in exceptional cases, to refuse mutual trust to another member state if the latter violates fundamental rights. Despite the development of the concept of mutual trust by the European Court of Justice and other EU institutions, recently there has been a serious deficit of interstate trust within the Union. In this regard, the principle of mutual trust is becoming declarative.

scholarly journals Countering the Judicial Silencing of Critics: Article 2 TEU Values, Reverse Solange, and the Responsibilities of National Judges

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 391-426
Author(s):  
Armin von Bogdandy ◽  
Luke Dimitrios Spieker
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Eu Fundamental Rights

EU Rule of law crisis – Article 2 TEU – EU values – EU fundamental rights – Freedom of speech – Member state courts – Interpretation of national law in conformity with Article 2 TEU values – Preliminary reference – Duty of referral – Criminal liability of judges – Reverse Solange – ASJP judgment – Judicial applicability of Article 2 TEU – Value-oriented interpretation of EU law – Mutual Amplification – Essence of EU fundamental rights – L.M. judgment – Aranyosi judgment – Federal balance – Red lines – Systemic deficiencies – Solange presumption – Mutual trust

Common European Asylum System: Contradictions and Crises

1970 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 45-65
Author(s):  
Rachel McNally
Keyword(s):  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
Exclusionary Practices ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
Strict Enforcement ◽  
The Common ◽  
Asylum Seekers And Refugees ◽  
The Eu

This paper exposes the contradictions and lack of commonality in the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), as well as the wide discrepancy between the European Union’s (EU) human rights rhetoric and exclusionary practices. It examines in detail the Dublin System, which determines the state responsible for processing an asylum claim. This examination demonstrates the differences between an appearance of unity and solidarity on asylum within the EU, but a reality of divergent policies and nationalist approaches to asylum. The failure of countries to fully apply EU law has major negative consequences for asylum seekers and refugees. Finally, the paper explores four possible future directions for the CEAS: disintegration and a return to national asylum systems, strict enforcement of existing EU law, the European Commission’s Dublin IV proposal, or a supranational EU asylum system.

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).

scholarly journals Protection of fundamental rights in the private law of the European Union

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-153
Author(s):  
Tatjana Josipović
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Freedom Of Contract ◽  
Optimal Balance ◽  
Private Autonomy

The paper considers and comments on the instruments of protection of the fundamental rights of the Union in private law relationships that are in the scope of applicable EU law. Special attention is paid to the influence of fundamental rights of the Union on private autonomy and the freedom of contract in private law relationships depending on whether fundamental rights are protected by national law harmonized with EU law, or by horizontal effects of the Charter of general principles. The goal of the paper is to determine the method in private law relationships that can attain the optimal balance between the protection of fundamental rights of the Union and the principle of private autonomy and the freedom of contract regulated by national law of a member state. The author favors the protection of fundamental rights in private law relationships by applying adequate measures that create indirect horizontal effects of the provisions of EU law on fundamental rights. These concern national measures that can also secure adequate protection of fundamental rights via interpretation and application of national law in line with EU law in private law relationships.

Fundamental Rights Protection between Strasbourg and Luxembourg

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katalin Ligeti
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
European Court ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Grand Chamber

Since long before the entry into force of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU), the two highest courts in Europe, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) have sought to develop their respective jurisprudence in such a way as to ensure a strong protection of individual rights, whilst avoiding clashes between the decisions taken in Luxembourg and Strasbourg. An important statement in this regard is provided by the Bosphorus judgment, in which the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR recognised the existence of a presumption of equivalent protection of fundamental rights under EU law. The presumption is rebuttable, but expresses the trustful attitude (and a certain degree of deference) of Strasbourg towards the ability of EU law (and of the CJEU) to protect Convention rights.

The Legislative Embedding of the Governance of EU Equality Law

2018 ◽  
pp. 144-200
Author(s):  
Elise Muir
Keyword(s):  
State Level ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Political Debate ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Governance Tools ◽  
Eu Policies ◽  
The Given ◽  
Eu Fundamental Rights ◽  
Domestic Level

Earlier chapters have warned against relying too heavily on a constitutional narrative to address the protection of fundamental rights in the EU. This indeed risks hindering political debate on fundamental rights at the European level. Chapter 5 sheds light on how certain features of EU law can in contrast be usefully exploited to support political debate and the development of a fundamental rights culture at the domestic level. One of the great added values of EU intervention in the field of fundamental rights protection lies in the procedural safeguards and governance tools available under EU law: they are remarkably advanced and sophisticated for a supranational organization seeking to combat fundamental rights violations. EU equality law and policy can in that sense be treated as a laboratory for the governance of fundamental rights steered at supranational level. Specialized watchdogs, such as equality bodies, may play a particularly interesting role. Furthermore, understanding specific EU policies as being intended to promote a fundamental right opens a vast area for comparative research across the given sectors of EU fundamental rights law, leading to a better grasp of how best to enhance the governance of these rights beyond state level. By way of experiment, this chapter explores the potential for legislative and jurisprudential cross-fertilization of the notion of independent fundamental rights guardians, such as equality bodies and data protection authorities, at the domestic level.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document