Abstract
The contribution discusses the quality of asylum standards under the Reception Conditions Directive and the Qualification Directive. Attention is drawn specifically to the lack of harmonisation under these Directives, the exceptions and optional mechanisms under the CEAS minimum standards. It is pointed out how the national practice must be in conformity with not only the EU norms and the judgments of the Court of Justice but where the EU norms create flexibility, the national practice must also be in compliance with international refugee protection, in particular the ECHR and the approach adopted by the European Court of Human Rights. The contribution further analyses the possibilities for adopting more harmonised approach to treatment of asylum seekers as well as qualifying them as refugees at the second stage of the CEAS.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Council Directive 2004/83 of 29 April 2004 (OJ L 304/12 of 30 September 2004).
- 2.
Council Directive 2003/9 of 27 January 2004 (OJ L 31/18 of 6 February 2003).
- 3.
Council Directive 2005/85 of 1 December 2005 (OJ L 326/13 of 13 December 2005).
- 4.
Cf., Gammeltoft-Hansen 2011 pp. 28–31. Notably, the broader meaning of the ‘quality of protection’ is here defined as the cumulative effect of the certainty, the scope and the level of rights afforded to refugees.
- 5.
- 6.
See supra n. 2, Sect. 10.1, Article 7.
- 7.
Ibid., Article 11.
- 8.
See supra n. 1, Sect. 10.1, Articles 4–8 with general standards, and Articles 9–14 and Articles 15–19, respectively.
- 9.
Ibid., Article 14 (4) and (5); the formal exclusion grounds have been laid down in the Qualification Directive Article 12, largely yet not entirely in accordance with Article 1 E, F and D of the Refugee Convention.
- 10.
Ibid., Article 4.
- 11.
Ibid., Article 5 (2) and (3).
- 12.
Ibid., Article 20 (6) and (7), respectively.
- 13.
Ibid., Article 26 (1). The unfortunate notion of ‘granting’ refugee status pursuant to Article 13 is structurally linked to the de facto exclusion mechanism under Article 14; see critical remarks above.
- 14.
Ibid., Article 26 (3).
- 15.
Ibid., Articles 28 (2) and 29 (2); according to recital 34 of the Qualification Directive preamble the somewhat unclear notion of ‘core benefits’ is to be understood to cover ‘at least minimum income support, assistance in case of illness, pregnancy and parental assistance, in so far as they are granted to nationals according to the Member State’s legislation.
- 16.
See supra n. 3, Sect. 10.1, Article 23, taken together with Articles 36 and 35, respectively.
- 17.
Ibid., Article 36; due to the ECJ annulment of Article 36 (3), this provision cannot be implemented by Member States.
- 18.
Ibid., Article 35 (2) and (3).
- 19.
Ibid., Article 39 (3) (a) and (b).
- 20.
Document COM 2007 301 final of 6 June 2007, Green Paper on the future Common European Asylum System, presented by the Commission, pp. 3–4.
- 21.
Ibid., pp. 4–5.
- 22.
Ibid., p. 6.
- 23.
Document COM(2008) 360/3 of 17 June 2008, Policy Plan on Asylum. An integrated approach to protection across the EU, Communication from the Commission, p. 5.
- 24.
Ibid., p. 5.
- 25.
Ibid., p. 4.
- 26.
Document COM(2008) 815 final of 3 December 2008, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers.
- 27.
Document COM(2009) 554 final of 21 October 2009, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing international protection.
- 28.
Document COM(2009) 551 final of 21 October 2009, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection and the content of the protection granted.
- 29.
Article 68 TEC, as contrasted with the general criteria for preliminary rulings under Article 234 TEC. See, for a critical account, Noll and Vedsted-Hansen 1999, p. 373.
- 30.
Article 267 TFEU.
- 31.
Document COM (2009) 66 final of 18 February 2009, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Asylum Support Office. See also para 6.2.1 of the Stockholm Programme – An open and secure Europe serving and protecting the citizens, adopted by the European Council 10-11 December 2009, OJ 2010 C 115/01.
- 32.
ECJ, Case C-465/07 of 17 February 2009 in Elgafaji [2009] ECR I-921. The judgment is discussed in some detail in Sect. 10.5.2, infra.
- 33.
Dutch Council of State, order for reference of 12 October 2007 in the case of Elgafaji and Elgafaji v. State Secretary for Justice (quoted in the Council of State judgment of 25 May 2009, no. 200702174/2/V2, para 2.3.4 – unofficial translation).
- 34.
See supra n. 32, Sect. 10.3.
- 35.
Dutch Council of State, judgment of 25 May 2009 in case 200702174/2/V2, para 2.3.8 (unofficial translation).
- 36.
See generally, Noll 2005.
- 37.
Cf., Gyulai 2007.
- 38.
Cf., Vedsted-Hansen 2005b.
- 39.
- 40.
Document COM(2009) 66 final of 18 February 2009, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Asylum Support Office.
- 41.
Section 6.2.1 of the Stockholm Programme—An open and secure Europe serving and protecting the citizens, adopted by the European Council 10–11 December 2009, supra n. 31.
- 42.
Cf., recital 25 of the Qualification Directive preamble: ‘It is necessary to introduce criteria on the basis of which applicants for international protection are to be recognised as eligible for subsidiary protection. Those criteria should be drawn from international obligations under human rights instruments and practices existing in Member States.’
- 43.
See supra n. 1, Sect. 10.1, Article 2 (e).
- 44.
Ibid., Article 15, cf. Article 2 (e).
- 45.
TEU Article 6 (1), cf., Articles 19 and 53 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Needless to say, the possible future accession by the EU to the ECHR according to TEU Article 6 (2) will further bring the interpretation of EU legal acts in line with the ECHR and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.
- 46.
See supra n. 32, Sect. 10.3, para 28.
- 47.
Ibid., paras 30–32.
- 48.
Ibid., para 35.
- 49.
Ibid., para 37.
- 50.
Ibid., para 44.
- 51.
This reading of para 44 of the judgment is supported by the Court’s express statement that the fundamental right guaranteed under ECHR Article 3 forms part of the general principles of Community law, observance of which is ensured by the Court, ibid., para 28.
- 52.
Ibid., para 38.
- 53.
Dutch Council of State, judgment of 25 May 2009 in case 200702174/2/V2. For further details, see Sect. 10.3, supra.
- 54.
See, in particular, Salah Sheekh v. Netherlands, ECtHR judgment of 11 January 2007; NA. v. United Kingdom, ECtHR judgment of 17 July 2008. For an account of this development of the ECtHR case law, and further discussion of the ECJ ruling in Elgafaji, see Vedsted-Hansen 2010.
- 55.
Council Directive 2001/55 of 20 July 2001 (OJ L 212/12 of 7 August 2001).
- 56.
Ibid., Article 5 (1) and (3).
- 57.
Cf., Vedsted-Hansen 2005a.
- 58.
Cf., UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Asylum in the European Union. A Study of the Implementation of the Qualification Directive 2007 available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/473050632.html (accessed 19 May 2010).
- 59.
Document COM (2008) 815 final of 3 December 2008, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers.
- 60.
Document COM (2009) 554 final of 21 October 2009, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing international protection.
- 61.
Document COM(2009) 551 final of 21 October 2009, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection and the content of the protection granted.
- 62.
Ibid., p. 8.
- 63.
Stockholm Programme—An open and secure Europe serving and protecting the citizens, adopted by the European Council 10–11 December 2009, supra n. 31.
- 64.
Ibid., Section 6.2.1, p. 69.
- 65.
Ibid., p. 70.
- 66.
Importantly, however, the Stockholm Programme, supra n. 31, restates the Tampere Conclusion objective of a ‘full and inclusive application’ of the Refugee Convention, and other relevant international treaties, ibid., p. 69.
- 67.
Ibid., Section 62.1, p. 70.
References
Battjes H (2006) European asylum law and international law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden
Costello C (2005) The asylum procedures directive and the proliferation of safe country practices: deterrence, deflection and the dismantling of international protection? Eur J Migr L 7(1):35–70
Gammeltoft-Hansen T (2011) Access to asylum. International Refugee Law and Globalisation of Migration Control, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Guild E (2001) Between persecution and protection. In: Dashwood A et al (eds) The Cambridge yearbook of European legal studies vol 3. Hart Publishing, Oxford., pp 169–197
Gyulai G (2007) Country information in asylum procedures. Quality as a legal requirement in the EU. http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?docid=479074032&page=search
Hathaway JC (2003) What’s in a label? Eur J Migr L 5(1):1–21
Lambert H (2009) Transnational judicial dialogue, harmonization and the Common European Asylum System. Int Comp L Q 58(3):519–543
Lambert H (2010) The limits of transnational law. Refugee law, policy harmonization and judicial dialogue in the European Union. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
McAdam J (2007) The qualification directive: an overview. In: Zwaan K (ed) The qualification directive: central themes problem issues, and implementation in selected member states. Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen, pp 7–29
Noll G (ed) (2005) Proof, evidentiary assessment and credibility in asylum procedures. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden
Noll G, Vedsted-Hansen J (1999) Non-communitarians: Refugee and asylum policies. In: Alston P (ed) The EU and human rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 359–408
UN High Commissioner for Refugees (2007) Asylum in the European Union. A study of the implementation of the Qualification Directive. http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/473050632.html. (accessed 19 May 2010)
Vedsted-Hansen J (2005a) Common EU standards on asylum–Optional harmonisation and exclusive procedures? Eur J Migr L 7(4):369–376
Vedsted-Hansen J (2005b) The borderline between questions of fact and questions of law. In: Noll G (ed) Proof, evidentiary assessment and credibility in asylum procedures. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp. 57–65
Vedsted-Hansen J (2010) European non-Refoulement revisited. Scand Stud L 55:275–282
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Veodsted-Hansen, J. (2011). Conditions and Criteria for Determining Asylum. In: Goudappel, F., Raulus, H. (eds) The Future of Asylum in the European Union. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-802-6_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-802-6_10
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-90-6704-801-9
Online ISBN: 978-90-6704-802-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)
