Germany – Federal Administrative Court, 8 May 2017 – 2 BvR 157/17
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Assessment of facts and circumstances
{ return; } );"
>
Description
The duty of the state to carry out an individual assessment of all relevant elements of the asylum application according to the provisions of Article 4 of the Qualification Directive, including considering past persecution and credibility; and the duty of the applicant to submit as soon as possible all statements and documentation necessary to substantiate the application. |
|
Effective remedy (right to)
{ return; } );"
>
Description
A general principle of EU law now set out in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights: "Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article.” “[It] is based on Article 13 of the ECHR: ‘Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.’ However, in Community law the protection is more extensive since it guarantees the right to an effective remedy before a court. The Court of Justice enshrined the principle in its judgment of 15 May 1986 (Case 222/84 Johnston [1986] ECR 1651; see also judgment of 15 October 1987, Case 222/86 Heylens [1987] ECR 4097 and judgment of 3 December 1992, Case C-97/91 Borelli [1992] ECR I-6313. According to the Court, this principle also applies to the Member States when they are implementing Community law. The inclusion of this precedent in the Charter is not intended to change the appeal system laid down by the Treaties, and particularly the rules relating to admissibility. This principle is therefore to be implemented according to the procedures laid down in the Treaties. It applies to the institutions of the Union and of Member States when they are implementing Union law and does so for all rights guaranteed by Union law.” |
|
Responsibility for examining application
{ return; } );"
>
Description
The Member State responsible for examining an application for asylum is determined in accordance with the criteria contained in Chapter III Dublin II Regulation in the order in which they are set out in that Chapter and on the basis of the situation obtaining when the asylum seeker first lodged his application with a Member State. |
|
Integration measures
{ return; } );"
>
Description
Member Statemeasures intended to further the integration of immigrants into their host communities. Per Art. 7(2) FRD Member States may require third country nationals to comply with integration measures, in accordance with national law. |
|
Material reception conditions
{ return; } );"
>
Description
“Reception conditions that include housing, food and clothing, provided in kind, or as financial allowances or in vouchers, and a daily expenses allowance.” |
Headnote:
The right to have recourse to the courts as enshrined in the German constitution (Art. 19 ss. 4 GG) is to be assessed in a thorough and reliable manner if the right to physical integrity (Art. 2 ss. 2 GG and Art. 3 of the ECHR) is at stake. The courts only adhere to this obligation if they carefully assess the evidence brought to them by the applicant considering the specific context of a person who has been granted international protection in a third country.
Facts:
The applicant is a Syrian national who was granted international protection in Greece. He then fled to Germany where he again applied for asylum. His asylum claim was rejected and he was to be deported to Greece on the ground that Germany was not responsible for processing the asylum claim under § 29 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 AsylG. The applicant launched an appeal to the administrative courts and also sought a preliminary injunction postponing his deportation.
Decision & reasoning:
1. The right to have one’s claim heard by the courts does not only entail the mere possibility of launching an appeal but also requires the courts to exercise their control over the executive in an effective manner. If the right to physical integrity (Art. 2 ss. 2 GG, Art. 3 ECHR) is at stake, the obligation to carefully and reliably assess the facts of the case is a constitutional one. The ECtHR has ruled that a violation of Art. 3 ECHR can also occur if one Convention state deports a person to another Convention state not considering the conditions in this state are in violation of Art. 3 ECHR.
2. The administrative court in Minden had violated the applicant’s rights in relying on a statement of the European Commission that Dublin transfers to Greece were to be carried out again as this related to asylum seekers who have not been granted international protection yet. The applicant had brought forward to the court that he would have access only to lower standards of social benefits than asylum seekers. Whilst the administrative court was right in finding that states only have an obligation under the Geneva Convention and the Qualification Directive to treat beneficiaries of international protection equally to their own citizens, Art. 34 of the Directive states that sufficient measures must be taken to ensure access to integration programmes to beneficiaries of international protection. Thus, if the applicant does not have access to any social benefits in the third country, this will amount to inhumane and degrading treatment. The principle of mutual recognition of standards between the EU member states was deeply impaired during the last years in the case of Greece and the conditions refugees and asylum seekers face there. Accordingly, the courts and authorities need to thoroughly assess the conditions prior to ordering deportation.
3. The applicant was thus violated in his right to have recourse to the courts and his right to physical integrity in the decision by the court to deport him contrary to § 60 ss. 5 AufenthG and Art. 3 which grant freedom from inhumane and degrading treatment.
Outcome:
Constitutional complaint granted.
Observations/comments:
This case summary was written by Anna Börger, member of the Cologne refugee law clinic.
Cited Cases:
| Cited Cases |
| ECtHR - M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece [GC], Application No. 30696/09 |
| ECtHR - Tarakhel v. Switzerland, Application no. 29217/12 |