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 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 TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION AND THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD

2016 ◽  
Vol 75 (3) ◽  
pp. 471-474
Author(s):  
Katarina Trimmings
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The Other ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Parental Responsibility ◽  
Habitual Residence ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Jurisdiction Rule

ARTICLE 8 of the Brussels IIa Regulation sets out the general rule regarding jurisdiction in intra-EU parental responsibility cases, namely that jurisdiction lies with the courts of the Member State of the habitual residence of the child. However, exceptionally, the court that has been seised of a case pursuant to Article 8 may not be the best placed to hear the case. To cater for such situations, the Regulation contains an innovative rule according to which a court that is seised of a case, and has jurisdiction on the substance, can transfer the case to a court of another Member State, if the latter is “better placed” to hear the case, and if the transfer is in the best interests of the child. Additionally, the transfer is subject to the condition that there is a “particular connection” between the child and the other Member State (e.g. the child is a national of that Member State). The “transfer of jurisdiction” rule, which is embodied in Article 15 of the Regulation, is at the heart of the Supreme Court decision in Re N (Children) (Adoption: Jurisdiction) (AIRE Centre and others intervening) [2016] UKSC 15; [2016] 2 W.L.R. 1103.

scholarly journals The Rinau Case and the wrongful removal or retention of children

2014 ◽  
pp. 124-146
Author(s):  
Anabela Susana de Sousa Gonçalves
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Parental Responsibility ◽  
Comprehensive Understanding ◽  
International Jurisdiction ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
Special Rules

The Rinau Case is a landmark decision of the ECJ regarding the wrongful removal or retention of children in the Regulation 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments both in matrimonial matters and those of parental responsibility (Brussels II bis). Having this case as starting point, this article explains the fast proceedings laid down in Brussels II bis Regulation for situations of wrongful removal or retention of children and the special rules for the recognition of the decision of return of the child wrongfully removed or retained in another Member State. However, as a preliminary point of discussion, and in order to allow a more comprehensive understanding of the proceedings concerning the wrongful removal or retention of children under the Regulation, a brief explanation of the framework of the regulation and the rules of international jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility is provided.

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.

The Refugee Crisis and the Executive: On the Limits of Administrative Discretion in the Common European Asylum System

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 1005-1032 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mattias Wendel
Keyword(s):  
Fair Division ◽  
Refugee Crisis ◽  
Administrative Discretion ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Legal Limits ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Right ◽  
Political Realities ◽  
Discretionary Powers

While the Dublin System was meant to create a clear and fair division of responsibilities for the examination of applications for international protection, the recent refugee crisis highlighted the extent to which normative aspirations and political realities can diverge. That said, the Dublin System does allow for a certain degree of flexibility: By exercising the discretionary right to assume responsibility under the so-called “sovereignty clause” of Article 17, paragraph 1 of the Dublin III Regulation, Member States can examine asylum applications even when they would not formally have jurisdiction for doing so according to the criteria established by the Dublin System. Germany has relied upon this right extensively during the refugee crisis. Against this backdrop, the following contribution analyzes the reasons for, and limits of, multilevel administrative discretion in the Common European Asylum System. It argues that when a Member State exercises the right to assume responsibility in a sweeping manner, i.e. in hundreds of thousands of cases, it runs the risk of overstretching the legal limits of its discretionary powers. National administrative bodies can only invoke the right to assume responsibility insofar as this does not amount to game-changing decisions by the executive or unilateral decision-making without transnational coordination – particularly when such decisions have severe transnational consequences.

II. WHOSE RULE OF LAW? AN ANALYSIS OF THE UK'S DECISION NOT TO OPT-IN TO THE EU ASYLUM PROCEDURES AND RECEPTION CONDITIONS DIRECTIVES

2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 1055-1064 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justine N Stefanelli
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

The United Kingdom (‘UK’) has indicated its intention not to opt-in to two proposals from the European Commission aimed at further developing the Common European Asylum System through the replacement of existing instruments on asylum procedures and reception conditions. The purpose of the European Union (‘EU’) amendment process is to establish rules that more closely align the legal framework for asylum in the Member States so that asylum seekers receive the same higher standard of treatment in any Member State in which they choose to make their application, and to address criticism that the Directives are incompatible with human rights obligations. The UK asserts that its asylum procedures satisfy the standards imposed by its obligations under international and European law, and does not view further harmonization of asylum matters at EU level as necessary or appropriate. Its decision not to opt-in raises issues regarding sovereignty, subsidiarity, the rule of law and European integration. This article will explore these issues, as well as provide an overview of select provisions from the proposals in light of UK asylum policy.

scholarly journals Residencia habitual del menor y tribunales competentes para modificar una resolución judicial sobre derecho de visita. Aplicación jurisprudencial de los artículos 8 y 9 del reglamento (CE) 2201/2003 = Habitual residency of the minor and competent courts to modify a judicial resolutionon the right of visit. Jurisprudential application of articles 8 and 9 of regulation (EC) 2201/2003

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 751
Author(s):  
Diana Gluhaia
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
General Criterion ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Parental Responsibility ◽  
Habitual Residence ◽  
International Jurisdiction ◽  
Article 9 ◽  
Judicial Ruling ◽  
The Right ◽  
A Minor

Resumen: En este Auto se cuestiona la competencia judicial internacional de los órganos juris­diccionales españoles en materia de responsabilidad parental de una menor que cambió la residencia habitual a otro Estado miembro: Alemania. El artículo 9 del Reglamento (CE) nº 2201/2003 es una excepción al criterio general de determinación de la competencia judicial internacional y sólo se activa cuando se cumplen todos los requisitos exigidos por esta norma. La Sala entendió que no se cumplían todas las condiciones, ya que no existía un pronunciamiento judicial previo respecto al derecho de visita que requiriese una modificación debido al traslado de la menor a otro Estado miembro, y que carece de sentido en este caso alterar una decisión judicial no existente.Palabras clave: responsabilidad parental, competencia judicial internacional, residencia habitual del menor. Competencia para modificar una resolución judicial sobre derecho de visita.Abstract: His Order questions the international judicial competence of the Spanish courts in mat­ters of parental responsibility of a minor who changed habitual residence to another Member State: Germany. Article 9 of Regulation (EC) nº 2201/2003 is an exception to the general criterion of deter­mination of international jurisdiction and is only activated when all the requirements demanded by this rule are met. The Chamber understood that all the conditions were not met, since there was no previous judicial ruling regarding the visiting right that required an amendment due to the transfer of the minor to another Member State, and that it makes no sense in this case to alter a decision non-existent judicial.Keywords: parental responsibility, international jurisdiction, habitual residence of the minor, competence to modify a court ruling on visiting rights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document