Tag Archives: CJEU
18 November 2013
On 14 November 2013, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) held in the Bundesrepublik Deutschland v. Kaveh Puid case that a member state which is prohibited from returning an asylum seeker under the Dublin II Regulation to a country where the applicant would be at risk of being ill-treated, is not, in principle, obliged to assume responsibility for that application.
In those circumstances, as already stated in 2011 in C-411/10 N.S. and C-493/10 M.E. and others, and reiterated by the CJEU in its current ruling, the member state intending to send the asylum seeker back to another country must continue to examine the responsibility criteria set out in the Dublin Regulation to see if another member state can be made responsible.
If no other country can be identified as responsible for examining the application, the member state where the asylum seeker is located must assume responsibility for examining the application. The member state must also assume responsibility if the process of determining responsibility takes ‘an unreasonable length of time’.
Source: Court of Justice of the European Union | Judgment in Case C-4/11 | Press Release No 147/13 | Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Kaveh Puid | Luxembourg, 14 November 2013
3 November 2013
In this blogpost I reflect, from a shared responsibility perspective, on two issues arising under the draft EU-ECHR Accession Agreement: (1) the question of to whom EU member states’ acts implementing EU law are attributed, and why; (2) the intervening role reserved for the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in proceedings brought before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The relevant provisions in the draft Accession Agreement are Art. 1(3), respectively Art. 3(6).
1. Issues of attribution
The draft Accession Agreement makes it clear that the attribution of responsibility may be a function of the relevant primary norms of international law, and their scope (the ECHR norms in the case) rather than of secondary rules that are applicable across-the-board. Questions of shared/exclusive responsibility are then conceived of differently with respect to the ECHR than, say, the World Trade Organization (WTO). In the former case, acts of EU member states implementing EU law are attributed to the member state rather than to the EU, whereas in the latter, such acts are attributed to the EU, the member states being mere agents or organs. (more…)
11 June 2013
On 6 June 2013, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that unaccompanied children who have applied for asylum in more than one EU Member State, and who do not have relatives legally residing in the EU, shall remain in the country where their most recent asylum application was lodged.
The CJEU concluded that it was in the best interest of the child that the country where their most recent asylum application was lodged takes responsibility for the examination of their claim. Therefore, unaccompanied children should not be sent back under the Dublin regulation to the country where they filed the first asylum application.
Source: Court of Justice of the European Union | Case C‑648/11 | Judgment | 6 June 2013