Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

European Court of Asylum—Does It Exist?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Protecting Human Rights in the EU

Abstract

The chapter assesses the role of the CJEU (Court of Justice of European Union) and the ECrtHR (European Court of Human Rights) in the asylum law development in Europe. Right of asylum is recognized by some EU Member States in their constitutions, but this is not the case in all EU Member States. Author seeks to find answers to several questions on the role of the courts in the development of EU asylum system by looking at the different instruments that one can use. In the analysis, special attention is paid on the Bosphorus ruling done by the ECrtHR as the basis of the protection of fundamental rights and the balance between the two important courts—the ECrtHR and CJEU in Europe. As after the Lisbon Treaty changes the Charter of Fundamental Rights becomes part of the primary legislation of European Union, it is also compared with the existing directives on refugee status, subsidiary protection, and qualification directive.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendocPDFViewer.html?docid=4fd6f87f9&query=statistics 2011, Accessed 15.01.2013.

  2. 2.

    For example Italy, Germany.

  3. 3.

    Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm v. Ireland, App. No. 45036/98, EctHR, 30 June 2005.

  4. 4.

    Opinion 2/94, Accession by the Communities to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [1996] ECRI-1759.

  5. 5.

    Protocol relation to the status of Refugees, adopted 31 Jan 1967, entered into force 4 Oct 1967, 606 UNTS 267. See more also in Lambert (2006).

  6. 6.

    European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, adopted 1950, entered into force 3 September 1953, 213 UNTS 221.

  7. 7.

    Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted 10 December 1984, entered into force 26 June 1987, 1464 UNTS 85.

  8. 8.

    Article 38 of the Convention: “Any dispute between parties to this Convention relating to its interpretation or applications, which cannot be settled by other means, shall be referred to the International Court of Justice at the request of any one of the parties to the dispute”.

  9. 9.

    Preamble, §6.

  10. 10.

    Ibid.

  11. 11.

    See Gil-Bazo (2007).

  12. 12.

    C 812/79 Attorney General v Burgoa [1980] ECR 2787, §6 and §10.

  13. 13.

    Art 5.1 of ECHR on arrest and detention of a person to prevent his unauthorized entry into the country or against whom deportation or extradition is contemplated and art. 16 on restrictions on the political activities of aliens.

  14. 14.

    Article 4 of Protocol no 4 of ECHR prohibits the collective expulsion of aliens.

  15. 15.

    Article 1 of Protocol no 7 of ECHR gives procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens: (1) An alien lawfully resident in the territory of a State shall not be expelled therefrom except in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall be allowed: (a) to submit reasons against his expulsion, (b) to have his case reviewed, and (c) to be represented for these purposes before the competent authority or a person or persons designated by that authority. (2) An alien may be expelled before the exercise of his rights under paragraph 1.a, b and c of this Article, when such expulsion is necessary in the interests of public order or is grounded on reasons of national security.

  16. 16.

    Chahal v UK on expulsion of aliens; Cruz Varas and Others v Sweden, Vilvarajah and Others v UK, Salah Sheek v The Netherlands. On the implementation of Dublin II Regulation, see AA v Greece, MMS v Belgium and Greece.

  17. 17.

    Fawsie v Greece, Saidoun v Greece, Rahimi v Greece. In 2010, the Court held that Greece was in breach of art 8 combined with art 14 for refusing to give family allowances to refugees on the ground that they were not Greek nationals, nationals of another EU Member State, or of Greek origin.

  18. 18.

    Jabari v Turkey, Conka v Belgium, Gebremedhin v France.

  19. 19.

    See more in Errera (2007) and Lambert (2006). Also, case Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey, the State parties are under an obligation to comply with them. The Court has repeatedly used it in cases relating to Sri Lanka.

  20. 20.

    Article 267 TFEU. Read more about the preliminary ruling from Barents (2009).

  21. 21.

    See Jacobs (2003) p. 343.

  22. 22.

    Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of EU.

  23. 23.

    Art 234 TFEU says that the Member State court may refer to European Court, but the court itself in several rulings have concluded that there is an obligation to refer C-393/98 Ministerion Publico and António Gomes Valente [2001] ECR I-1327.

  24. 24.

    C-133/06, European Parliament v Council of the European Union, 2008 ECR I-3189.

  25. 25.

    Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted OJL 304, 30/09/2004 P. 0012–0023.

  26. 26.

    Case C.465/05, Meki Elgafaji and Noor Elgafaji v Staatsecretaris van Justitie, Grand Chamber, 2009, ECR I-921. See also Errera (2011b) pp. 93–112.

  27. 27.

    Joined Cases C-175/0, C176/08, C178/08 and C-179/98, Aydin Salahadin Abdulla, Kamil Hasan, Ahmed Adem, Hamrin Mosa Rashi and Dler Jamal v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 2 March 2010. See also Errera (2011a) pp. 521–537.

  28. 28.

    C- 31/09 Nawras Bobol v Bevandorlasi es Allampolgarsagi Hivatal.

  29. 29.

    Joined Cases C-57/09 and C-101/09, Bundesrepublik Deutschland v B and D.

  30. 30.

    C-71/11 Y and C-99/11 on religious persecution.

  31. 31.

    C-19/08, Migrationsverket v Petrosian, C-411/10 NS, C-493/10 ME and others, C-620/10, Kastrati, C-4/11 Puid, C-164/11 CIMAD et GISTI.

  32. 32.

    C-69/10 Samba Diouf, C-175/11 HID.

  33. 33.

    Preamble of the Charter.

  34. 34.

    Article 18 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights.

  35. 35.

    Recital 10 of the directive.

  36. 36.

    See Bolbon, §38; Abdulla, §53-54; and B and D, §78.

  37. 37.

    In Case C-411/10, art 18 was referred; in Case C-69/10 Samba Diouf, delivered on March 1, 2011, art 47 of the Charter was quoted.

  38. 38.

    [2004] OJ L 304/12.

  39. 39.

    See more in Phuong (2003).

  40. 40.

    C 29/69 Staudr [1969] ECR 419, §7.

  41. 41.

    Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm v. Ireland, App. No. 45036/98, EctHR, 30 June 2005.

  42. 42.

    App No 45036/98 Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi (Bosphorus Airways) v Ireland [GC], judgment of 30 June 2005, Reports 2005-V, (2006) 42 EHRR 1, 155–156.

  43. 43.

    Ibid.

  44. 44.

    Accession of the Community to the European Human Rights Convention, (Opinion 2/94), ECR 1996, I-1759.

  45. 45.

    Bosphorus (2006) 42 E.H.R.R. 1 at 155 and 156.

  46. 46.

    Bosphorus (2006) 42 E.H.R.R. 1 at 156.

  47. 47.

    C-402/05 & 415/05 Kadi v Council of the European Union, C-6/64 Costa v Enel, C-459/03 Commission v Ireland.

  48. 48.

    Case C-274/99 P, [2001] ECR I-1611.

  49. 49.

    Article 52(4).

  50. 50.

    Kadi C-402/05, E.C.R. I-6351.

  51. 51.

    Germany v Council of the European Union C-122/95, E.C.R. I-973.

  52. 52.

    Peers (2007).

  53. 53.

    Hinarejos (2009).

References

Books and Articles

  • Barents R (2009) Directory of European Union case law on the preliminary ruling procedure. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijin

    Google Scholar 

  • Costello C (2006) The Bosphorus Ruling of the European Court of Human Rights: fundamental rights and blurred boundaries in Europe. Hum Rights Law Rev 6:87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Errera R (2007) The European Court of Human Rights and interim measures: scope of powers and issues for domestic courts. In: Mole N (ed) Asylum and the European Convention on Human Rights. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Errera R (2011a) Cessation and assessment of new circumstances: a comment on Abdulla, ECJ, 2 March 2010. Int J Refug Law 23:521–537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Errera R (2011b) The CJEU and subsidiary protection: reflections on Elgafaji - and after. Int J Refug Law 23:93–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gil-Bazo M-T (2007) Refugee status and subsidiary protection under EC law: the qualification directive and the right to be granted asylum. In: Baldaccini A et al(ed) Whose freedom security and justice? EU immigration and asylum law and policy. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinarejos A (2009) Judicial control in the European Union. Reforming jurisdiction in the intergovernmental pillars. OUP, Oxford, p 179

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs F (2003) Effective judicial protection of individuals in the European Union, now and in the future. In: Andens M, Usher J (eds) The Treaty of Nice enlargement and constitutional reform. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert H (2006) The EU asylum qualification directive—its impact on the jurisprudence of the United Kingdom and international law. Int Comp Law Q 55:184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peers S (2007) The jurisdiction of the Court of Justice over EC immigration and asylum law: time for a change? In: Baldaccini A et al(ed) Whose freedom security and justice? EU immigration and asylum law and policy. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Phuong C (2003) Persecution by non-state agents: comparative judicial interpretation of the 1951 refugee convention. Eur J Migr Law 4:521–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

Case Law

Official Materials

  • Accession of the Community to the European Human Rights Convention, (opinion 2/94), ECR 1996, I-1759

    Google Scholar 

  • Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted OJL 30, 30/09/2004 P. 0012 - 0023

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted 10 December 1984, entered into force 26 June 1987, 1464 UNTS 85.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, adopted 1950, entered into force 3 September 1953, 213 UNTS 221 http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendocPDFViewer.html?docid=4fd6f87f9&query=statistics 2011, 15.01.2013

  • Opinion 2/94, Accession by the Communities to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [1996] ECRI-1759

    Google Scholar 

  • Protocol relation to the status of Refugees, adopted 31 Jan 1967, entered into force 4 Oct 1967, 606 UNTS 267

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tallinn Law School, Tallinn University of Technology, Akadeemia tee 3, 12618, Tallinn, Estonia

    Lehte Roots

Authors
  1. Lehte Roots
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lehte Roots .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Tallinn Law School, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia

    Tanel Kerikmäe

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Roots, L. (2014). European Court of Asylum—Does It Exist?. In: Kerikmäe, T. (eds) Protecting Human Rights in the EU. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38902-3_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation