Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Reset
CJEU - C‑348/16, Moussa Sacko
Country of applicant: Mali
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Manifestly unfounded application, Personal interview

If an application for protection has been heard at first instance and the applicant there had the opportunity of a full examination including a personal interview and was given a transcript or report of the interview; and if it was there determined that the application is manifestly unfounded; then EU asylum law in particular Directive 2013/32/EU allows the national court or tribunal to dismiss an appeal without allowing the applicant  a further opportunity to be heard.

However, a hearing may be conducted if the court hearing the appeal considers it necessary for the purpose of ensuring that there is a full and ex nunc examination of both facts and points of law, as required under Article 46(3) of the Directive.

Date of decision: 26-07-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,European Union Law,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 47,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Recital (18),Recital (20),Article 2,Article 12,Article 14,Article 17,Article 31,Article 32,Article 46,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 6
CJEU - C‑670/16, Tsegezab Mengesteab v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Country of applicant: Eritrea
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Dublin Transfer

Article 27(1) of the Dublin Regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that an applicant for international protection may rely, in the context of an action brought against a decision to transfer him, on the expiry of a period laid down in Article 21(1) of that regulation, even if the requested Member State is willing to take charge of that applicant.

The two-month period for submitting a take charge request where there has been a Eurodac hit is not cumulative with the general three-month period for take charge requests.

An application for international protection is deemed to have been lodged if a written document, prepared by a public authority and certifying that a third-country national has requested international protection, has reached the authority responsible for implementing the obligations arising from that regulation, and as the case may be, if only the main information contained in such a document, but not that document or a copy thereof, has reached that authority.

Date of decision: 26-07-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Article 6,Article 31,EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,Article 4,EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation),Recital (4),Recital (5),Recital (9),Recital (19),Article 3,Article 4,Article 6,Article 13,Article 17,Article 18,Article 20,Article 21,Article 22,Article 27,Article 28,EN - Recast Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2013/33/EU of 26 June 2013,Article 6,Article 14,Article 17
Hungary - Metropolitan Court of Public Administration and Labour, 10 March 2016, 5.K.30.385/2016
Country of applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Subsidiary Protection, Refugee Status

In case of conflict between a domestic and international norm the Court is obliged to adhere to the latter and set aside the former. Given the well-established right to an effective remedy in international and European instruments, an element of which relates to the remedy’s timeliness, the court is obliged to remake the OIN’s subsidiary protection decision and provide the applicant with refugee status. This conclusion applies notwithstanding that domestic legislation prohibits the Court from reforming an OIN decision. To abide by this legislation would result in a never-ending appeal procedure thereby rendering the remedy ineffective.

Date of decision: 10-03-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 47,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Article 31,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 6,Article 13,Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01