Netherlands - ABRvS, 20 December 2013, 201309301/1/V2
| Country of Decision: | Netherlands |
| Court name: | ABRvS (Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak Raad van State) |
| Date of decision: | 20-12-2013 |
| Citation: | 201309301/1/V2 |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Effective access to procedures
Description
Effective access to legal and administrative procedures undertaken by UNHCR and/or States in accordance with the Asylum Procedures Directive to determine whether an individual should be recognized as a refugee in accordance with national and international law. |
Headnote:
Processing an appeal without a hearing, on application of Article 91(2) of the Foreigners Act (2000), is not in breach of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Facts:
This summary concerns an appeal by the foreigner against the judgment of the Court of Middelburg of 30 September 2013 in case no. 13/23398 and case no. 13/23399. In a decision dated 6 September 2013, the foreigner's application for a temporary asylum-related residence permit was rejected. In its judgment of 30 September 2013, the Court dismissed the foreigner's appeal against this. The foreigner asserted that his appeal should also be processed in a public hearing, so that he could be examined orally.
Decision & reasoning:
The foreigner asserted that Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union prevents application of Article 91(2) of the Foreigners Act (2000) and that his appeal should also be processed in a public hearing, so that he could be examined orally. He referred in this connection to the judgment of 22 November 2012 by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-277/11, M.M. The Council of State concluded that it followed from its judgment of 29 November 2013 in Case 201309876/1/V3 that the decisions by the European Court of Human Rights in the cases Arvelo Aponte v. the Netherlands (Application No. 28870/05, 3 November 2011) and Fejde v. Sweden (Application No. 12631/87, 29 October 1991) suggest that not holding a hearing on appeal and issuing a summary judgment on application of Article 91(2) of the Foreigners Act (2000) in itself did not mean that an effective remedy, within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, had not been offered. In this case, a public hearing had taken place in the first instance, during which the foreigner was examined. Furthermore, no legal questions or questions of a factual nature were discussed on appeal that could not be settled on the basis of the documents relating to the case. The Council of State therefore disagreed with the foreigner's assertion. This conclusion was not effectedby the foreigner's reference to the decision in the case M.M., as that case concerned a hearing before an administrative authority prior to a decision being made that was not in the individual's favour.
Outcome:
The foreigner's appeal was dismissed.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Cited National Legislation:
| Cited National Legislation |
| Netherlands - Vreemdelingenbesluit 2000 (Foreigners Act) - Art 28 |
| Netherlands - Vreemdelingenbesluit 2000 (Foreigners Act) |
Cited Cases:
| Cited Cases |
| CJEU - C-277/11, MM (UP) |
| Netherlands - Council of State, 29 November 2013, 201309876/1/V3 |
| ECtHR - Arvelo Aponte v. the Netherlands, Application No. 28770/05 |
| ECtHR - Fejde v Sweden, Application No. 12631/87 |