Advertisement

European Case Law on Asylum Matters: Interrelation and Interdependence of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union

  • Nives Mazur KumrićEmail author
  • Mirela ŽupanEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Europeanization and Globalization book series (EAG, volume 1)

Abstract

The Council of Europe and the European Union are major players and partners in the domain of policy-shaping strategies on the European continent, with significant and ever-growing impact on international community as a whole. Although the ratio and ideas behind their establishment were not the same (economic versus humanistic), they have, over the time, acquired a similar attitude towards a number of legal issues, including protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Unlike the Council of Europe, which perceived human rights as a cornerstone of its founding pillars, the EU took a longer way to incorporate them in its priority areas. The latter shift was, however, rapid, and these days one is witnessing a large-scale cooperation instituted between respective regional organisations with the aim of creating a human-rights-friendly environment. The purpose of this paper is to shed light on one particular segment of their cooperation in the field of human rights protection—asylum law. For the fact that Europe attracts a large contingency of people looking for better life and new beginnings, asylum matters have moved swiftly to the forefront of the Council of Europe and EU standard-setting policies. Nevertheless, the existence of two parallel legal regimes has not led to an inconsistent asylum policy. In order to illustrate the Council of Europe and EU distinctive approaches to asylum, as well as their manifold interplay in the respective arena, the paper summarises the most notable pieces of their legal and regulatory framework and offers an insight into some of the leading asylum cases brought before the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Keywords

Asylum Seeker European Convention Official Journal Fundamental Freedom Home Department 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Achermann A, Gattiker M (1995) Safe third countries: European developments. Int J Refugee Law 7(1):19–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackers D (2005) The negotiations on the Asylum Procedures Directive. Eur J Migr Law 7(1):1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alston P, Goodman R (2012) International human rights – the successor to international human rights in context: law, politics and morals. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Avci G (1999) Immigrant categories: the many sides of one coin? Eur J Migr Law 1(2):199–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Battjes H (2009) In search of a fair balance: the absolute character of the prohibition of refoulement under Article 3 ECHR reassessed. Leiden J Int Law 22(3):583–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bossuyt M (2012) The court of Strasbourg acting as an Asylum Court. Eur Const Law Rev 8(2):203–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brouwer E (2013) Mutual trust and the Dublin regulation: protection of fundamental rights in the EU and the burden of proof. Utrecht Law Rev 9(1):135–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crawford J (2012) Brownlie’s principles of public international law, 8th edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carey SC, Gibney M, Poe SC (2012) The politics of human rights: the quest for dignity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Grabenwarter C, Pabel K (2013) Article 6 (fundamental rights – the charter and the ECHR). In: Blanke H-J, Mangiameli S (eds) The Treaty on European Union (TEU) – a commentary. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 287–349Google Scholar
  11. Guild E (2006) The Europeanization of Europe’s Asylum Policy. Int J Refugee Law 18(3–4):630–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haddad E (2010) EU migration policy: evolving ideas of responsibility and protection. Global Resp Protect 2(1–2):86–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heilbronner K (1993) The concept of ‘Safe Country’ and expeditious Asylum Procedures: a western European perspective. Int J Refugee Law 5(1):31–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hurwitz A (1999) The 1990 Dublin Convention: a comprehensive assessment. Int J Refugee Law 11(4):646–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Joly D (1994) The porous dam: European harmonization on Asylum in the nineties. Int J Refugee Law 6(2):159–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lavrysen L (2012) European Asylum law and the ECHR: an uneasy coexistence. Goettingen J Int Law 4(1):197–242Google Scholar
  17. Lenart J (2012) ‘Fortress Europe’: compliance of the Dublin II Regulation with the European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Merkourios-Utrecht J Int Eur Law 28(75):4–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lambert H (2009) Transnational judicial dialogue, harmonization and the common European Asylum System. Int Comp Law Q 58(3):519–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Noll G (2001) Formalism v. Empiricism: some reflections on the Dublin Convention on the occasion of recent European case law. Nordic J Int Law 70(1):161–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marx R (2001) Adjusting the Dublin Convention: new approaches to member state responsibility for Asylum applications. Eur J Migr Law 3(1):7–22Google Scholar
  21. Omejec J (2013) Konvencija za zaštitu ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda u praksi Europskog suda za ljudska prava – strasbourški acquis. Novi informator, ZagrebGoogle Scholar
  22. Reneman M (2008) Access to an effective remedy in European Asylum procedures. Amsterdam Law Forum 1:65–98Google Scholar
  23. Staffans I (2010) Judicial protection and the new European Asylum regime. Eur J Migr Law 12(3):273–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stubberfield C (2012) Lifting the organisational veil: positive obligations of the European Union following accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. Aust Int Law J 19:117–142Google Scholar
  25. Teitgen-Colly C (2006) The European Union and Asylum: an illusion of protection. Common Market Law Rev 43(6):1503–1566Google Scholar
  26. Uçarer EM (2006) Burden-Shirking, Burden-Shifting, and burden-sharing in the emergent European Asylum regime. Int Polit 43(2):219–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Van Boven T (2010) Categories of rights. In: Moeckli D, Shah S, Sivakumaran S (eds) International human rights law. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 173–188Google Scholar
  28. Vedsted-Hansen J (2005) Common EU standards on Asylum – optional harmonisation and exclusive procedures? Eur J Migr Law 7(4):369–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Velutti S (2014) Reforming the common European Asylum system – legislative developments and judicial activism of the European Courts. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wouters CW (2009) International legal standards for the protection from refoulement. Intersentia Publishers, MortselGoogle Scholar
  31. Zuijdwijk T (2011) M. S. S. v. Belgium and Greece (European Court of Human Rights): the interplay between european Union Law and the European Convention on Human Rights in the post-Lisbon era. Ga J Int Comp Law 39(2):807–832Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Law and Political ScienceUniversity of LiègeLiègeBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Private International Law, Faculty of LawJ.J. Strossmayer University of OsijekOsijekCroatia

Personalised recommendations