Language Switcher

Navigation

Key Words Archives: Access to the asylum procedure

CJEU, FMS and Others v. Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság Dél-alföldi Regionális Igazgatóság and Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság, Joined Cases no. C-924/19 and C-925/19 PPU, 14 May 2020

On 07/09/2022 in

Directive 2008/115 and Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation imposed on a third-country national to remain permanently in a transit zone the perimeter of which is restricted and closed, within which that national’s movements are limited and monitored, and which they cannot legally leave voluntarily, in any direction whatsoever, appears to be a deprivation of liberty, characterised by ‘detention’ within the meaning of those directives.

Source: official link

Continue Reading

Amuur v. France, ECtHR, Application No. 19776/92, Judgment of 25 June 1996

On 07/09/2022 in

The Court found that the detention of aliens pending deportation is acceptable only in order to enable States to prevent unlawful immigration while complying with their international obligations, particularly under the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the ECHR. Such holding should not be prolonged excessively, otherwise there would be a risk of it turning a mere restriction on liberty into a deprivation of liberty. In that connection account should be taken of the fact that the measure is applicable not to those who have committed criminal offences but to aliens who, often fearing for their lives, have fled from their own country.

Source: official link

Continue Reading

Saadi v. United Kingdom, ECtHR, Application No. 13229/03, Judgment of 29 January 2008

On 05/09/2022 in

The Court recalled that it is a fundamental principle that no detention which is arbitrary can be compatible with Article 5 § 1 ECHR and the notion of ‘arbitrariness’ in Article 5 § 1 extends beyond lack of conformity with national law, so that a deprivation of liberty may be lawful in terms of domestic law but still arbitrary and thus contrary to the Convention. To avoid being branded as arbitrary, therefore, detention under Article 5 § 1 (f) must be carried out in good faith; it must be closely connected to the purpose of preventing unauthorised entry of the person to the country; the place and conditions of detention should be appropriate; and the length of the detention should not exceed that reasonably required for the purpose pursued.

Source: official link

Continue Reading

O.M. v. Hungary, ECtHR, Application No. 9912/15, Judgment of 5 July 2016

On 05/09/2022 in

The Court recalls that detention is authorised under subparagraph (b) of Article 5 § 1 only to ‘secure the fulfilment’ of the obligation prescribed by law. It follows that, at the very least, there must be an unfulfilled obligation incumbent on the person concerned, and the arrest and detention must be for the purpose of securing its fulfilment and must not be punitive in character. As soon as the relevant obligation has been fulfilled, the basis for detention under Article 5 § 1 (b) ceases to exist.

Source: official link

Continue Reading

Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast)

On 05/09/2022 in

The recast “Asylum Procedures Directive” is a recast of a previous Directive (Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005), with implementation deadline of 20 July 2015. The Directive sets up common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (refugee status and the protection given to people who are not refugees but who would risk serious harm if returned to their country of origin). The Directive enshrines the presumption of minority and further provides requirements on how age assessment should be carried out (art. 25).

Source: official link

Continue Reading