asylum procedures and the principle - easo.europa.eu · european asylum support office the european...
Post on 30-Apr-2019
225 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
European Asylum Support Office
SUPPORT IS OUR MISSION
Compilation of jurisprudence
Asylum procedures and the principle of non-refoulement
July 2018
Produced by IARLJ-Europe under contract to EASO
EASO professional development materials have been created in cooperation with members of courts and tribunals on the following topics:
an introduction to the Common European Asylum System for courts and tribunals; qualification for international protection (Directive 2011/95/EU); asylum procedures and the principle of non-refoulement; evidence and credibility assessment in the context of the Common European Asylum
System; Article 15(c) qualification directive (Directive 2011/95/EU); exclusion: Articles 12 and 17 qualification directive (Directive 2011/95/EU); ending international protection: Articles 11, 14, 16 and 19 Qualification Directive (Directive
2011/95/EU); a country of origin information.
The Professional Development Series comprises Judicial analyses, Judicial trainers' guidance notes and Compilations of jurisprudence for each topic covered, apart from Country of ori-gin information which comprises a Judicial practical guide accompanied by a Compilation of jurisprudence. All materials are developed in English. For more information on publications, including on the availability of different language versions, please visit www.easo.europa.eu/training-quality/courts-and-tribunals.
http://www.easo.europa.eu/training-quality/courts-and-tribunals.http://www.easo.europa.eu/training-quality/courts-and-tribunals.
European Asylum Support Office
SUPPORT IS OUR MISSION
July 2018
Compilation of jurisprudence
Asylum procedures and the principle of non-refoulement
EASO Professional Development Series for members of courts and tribunals
More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu).
Print ISBN 978-92-9494-752-9 doi:10.2847/065986 BZ-07-17-011-EN-C PDF ISBN 978-92-9494-751-2 doi:10.2847/529423 BZ-07-17-011-EN-N
European Asylum Support Office 2018
Neither EASO nor any person acting on its behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained herein.
http://europa.eu
3Compilation of jurisprudence: Asylum procedures and the principle of non-refoulement
European Asylum Support Office
The European Asylum Support Office (EASO) is an agency of the European Union that plays a key role in the concrete development of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). It was established with the aim of enhancing practical cooperation on asylum matters and help-ing Member States fulfil their European and international obligations to give protection to people in need.
Article 6 of the EASO founding regulation (1) specifies that the agency shall establish and develop training available to members of courts and tribunals in the Member States. For this purpose, EASO shall take advantage of the expertise of academic institutions and other rele-vant organisations, and take into account the Unions existing cooperation in the field with full respect to the independence of national courts and tribunals.
The International Association of Refugee Law Judges
The International Association of Refugee Law Judges (IARLJ) is a transnational, non-profit asso-ciation that seeks to foster recognition that protection from persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group is an indi-vidual right established under international law and that the determination of refugee status and its cessation should be subject to the rule of law. Since its foundation in 1997, the associ-ation has been heavily involved in the training of judges around the world dealing with asylum cases. The European Chapter of the IARLJ (IARLJ-Europe) is the regional representative body for judges within Europe. One of IARLJ-Europes specific objectives under its Constitution is to enhance knowledge and skills and to exchange views and experiences of judges on all matters concerning the application and functioning of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS).
Contributors
This compilation of jurisprudence has been developed by a two-component process: an edi-torial team (ET) of judges and tribunal members with overall responsibility for the final product, and a drafting team of experts.
In order to ensure the integrity of the principle of judicial independence and that the EASO Professional Development Series for members of courts and tribunals (PDS) is developed and de livered under judicial guidance, an ET composed of serving judges and tribunal members with extensive experience and expertise in the field of asylum law was selected under the aus-pices of a Joint Monitoring Group. The group is composed of representatives of the contracting parties, EASO and IARLJ-Europe. The ET reviewed drafts, gave detailed guidance to the drafting team, drafted amendments and was the final decision-making body as to the scope, structure, content and design of the work. The work of the ET was undertaken through a combination of face-to-face meetings in London in May 2017 and in Brussels in October 2017 as well as regular electronic/telephonic communication.
(1) Regulation (EU) No 439/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 establishing a European Asylum Support Office (OJ L 132, 29.5.2010, pp. 11-28).
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:132:0011:0028:EN:PDF
4 Compilation of jurisprudence: Asylum procedures and theprinciple of non-refoulement
Editorial team of judges
The members of the ET were judges and tribunal members Hugo Storey (United Kingdom, Chair), Hilkka Becker (Ireland), Jakub Camrda (Czech Republic), Katelijne Declerck (Belgium), Michael Hoppe (Germany), Liesbeth Steendijk (Netherlands), Florence Malvasio (France) and Botjan Zalar (Slovenia). The ET was supported and assisted in its task by Project Coordination Manager Clara Odofin.
Drafting team of experts
The drafting team consisted of lead expert Professor Jens Vedsted-Hansen (Aarhus University, Denmark), Dr Cline Bauloz (Global Migration Centre, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland), Dr Constantin Hruschka (University of Bielefeld, Germany), Hana Lupaov (Public Defender of Human Rights, Brno, Czech Republic), Dr Dirk Sander (Federal Administrative Court, Leipzig, Germany) and Dr Louise Halleskov Storgaard (Aarhus University, Denmark). Consultants Frances Nicholson and Claire Thomas provided editorial support.
Acknowledgements
Comments on the draft were received from Judge Lars Bay Larsen and Yann Laurans of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and from Judge Ledi Bianku of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in their personal capacities.
Comments were also received from the following participants in the EASO network of court and tribunal members and in the EASO consultative forum: Ana Celeste Carvalho, appellate judge at the Central South Administrative Court and judicial trainer at the Centre for Judicial Studies, Lisbon, Portugal; Lars I. Magnusson, judge at the Administrative Court of Gothen-burg, Sweden, and migration law representative at the Judicial Training Academy, Jnkping, Sweden; Catherine Koutsopoulou, judge at the Court of First Instance of Athens and member of the third Independent Appeal Committee, Athens, Greece; European Council on Refugees and Exiles, Brussels, Belgium; Koulocheris Spyros, head of legal research, Greek Council for Refugees, Athens, Greece; and Oikonomou Sypros-Vlad, legal and programmes intern, Greek Council for Refugees, Athens, Greece.
All these comments were taken into consideration by the ET in finalising the text for publica-tion. The members of the ET and EASO are grateful to all those who have made comments, which have been very helpful in finalising this compilation of jurisprudence.
This compilation will be updated as necessary by EASO, in accordance with the methodology for the EASO Professional Development Series for members of courts and tribunals.
5Compilation of jurisprudence: Asylum procedures and the principle of non-refoulement
Compilation of jurisprudence
The purpose of this compilation of jurisprudence is to provide courts and tribunals in Member States with a helpful aid when hearing appeals or conducting reviews of decisions on appli-cations for international protection cases. Contributors decided to include in this compilation jurisprudence from the CJEU and the ECtHR and national case-law from two Member States.
6 Compilation of jurisprudence: Asylum procedures and theprinciple of non-refoulement
Com
pila
tion
of ju
rispr
uden
ce
Cour
t of J
ustic
e of
the
Euro
pean
Uni
on ju
rispr
uden
ce
Cour
tCa
se n
ame/
re
fere
nce/
date
Rele
vanc
e/ke
y w
ords
/mai
n po
ints
Case
s cite
d
CJEU
The
Que
en v
Sec
reta
ry
of S
tate
for T
rans
port
, ex
par
te F
acto
rtam
e,
Case
C-2
13/8
9,
EU:C
:199
0:25
7.
19.6
.199
0
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g fr
om th
e U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m re
latin
g to
the
right
s der
ived
from
pro
visio
ns o
f Com
mun
ity la
w.
Com
mun
ity la
w
app
licati
on fo
r int
erim
relie
f e
xist
ence
of a
nati
onal
rule
pro
hibi
ting
that
app
licati
on fr
om b
eing
gra
nted
d
uties
and
pow
ers o
f the
co
urt s
eise
d.
Para
. 21:
It m
ust b
e ad
ded
that
the
full
effec
tiven
ess o
f Com
mun
ity la
w w
ould
be
just
as m
uch
impa
ired
if a
rule
of n
ation
al la
w c
ould
pre
vent
a c
ourt
se
ised
of a
disp
ute
gove
rned
by
Com
mun
ity la
w fr
om g
ranti
ng in
terim
relie
f in
orde
r to
ensu
re th
e fu
ll eff
ectiv
enes
s of t
he ju
dgm
ent t
o be
giv
en o
n th
e ex
isten
ce o
f the
righ
ts c
laim
ed u
nder
Com
mun
ity la
w. I
t fol
low
s tha
t a c
ourt
whi
ch in
thos
e ci
rcum
stan
ces w
ould
gra
nt in
terim
relie
f, if
it w
ere
not f
or
a ru
le o
f nati
onal
law,
is o
blig
ed to
set a
side
that
rule
.
CJEU
Virg
inie
Pon
tin
v T-
Com
alux
SA,
Ca
se C
-63/
08,
EU:C
:200
9:66
6.
29.1
0.20
09
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g fr
om th
e Tr
ibun
al d
u tr
avai
l dE
sch-
sur-A
lzette
(Lux
embo
urg)
rela
ting
to th
e re
stric
tion
of re
med
ies
avai
labl
e to
wom
en d
ismiss
ed d
urin
g pr
egna
ncy.
Judi
cial
pro
tecti
on o
f rig
hts e
njoy
ed b
y in
divi
dual
s und
er C
omm
unity
law
e
qual
trea
tmen
t for
men
and
wom
en
less
favo
urab
le tr
eatm
ent o
f a
wom
an re
late
d to
pre
gnan
cy o
r mat
erni
ty le
ave
re
med
ies a
vaila
ble
to w
omen
.
Para
. 65:
How
ever
, eve
n if
that
pro
visio
n w
ere
to li
mit
the
effec
ts o
f tha
t cas
e-la
w re
latin
g to
the
posti
ng o
f the
lette
r of d
ismiss
al, w
hich
, whe
re
nece
ssar
y, it
is fo
r the
refe
rrin
g co
urt t
o de
cide
, it w
ould
how
ever
be
very
diffi
cult
for a
fem
ale
wor
ker d
ismiss
ed d
urin
g he
r pre
gnan
cy to
obt
ain
prop
er
advi
ce a
nd, i
f app
ropr
iate
, pre
pare
and
brin
g an
acti
on w
ithin
the
15-d
ay p
erio
d.
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30ddcb0c7f4009be4526addce480e7d5a84e.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxyNbNj0?text=&docid=96746&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=959102http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30ddcb0c7f4009be4526addce480e7d5a84e.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxyNbNj0?text=&docid=96746&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=959102http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30ddcb0c7f4009be4526addce480e7d5a84e.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxyNbNj0?text=&docid=96746&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=959102http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=73372&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=44173http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=73372&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=44173
7Compilation of jurisprudence: Asylum procedures and the principle of non-refoulement
Cour
tCa
se n
ame/
re
fere
nce/
date
Rele
vanc
e/ke
y w
ords
/mai
n po
ints
Case
s cite
d
CJEU
Hass
en E
l Drid
i, al
ias S
oufi
Karim
, Ca
se C
-61/
11 P
PU,
EU:C
:201
1:26
8.
28.4
.201
1
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g fr
om th
e Co
rte
dap
pello
di T
rent
o (It
aly)
rela
ting
to c
omm
on st
anda
rds a
nd p
roce
dure
s in
Mem
ber
Stat
es fo
r ret
urni
ng il
lega
lly st
ayin
g th
ird-c
ount
ry n
ation
als.
Retu
rn o
f ille
gally
stay
ing
third
-cou
ntry
nati
onal
s A
rticl
es 1
5 an
d 16
of D
irecti
ve 2
008/
115/
EC
det
entio
n in
the
even
t of r
efus
al to
obe
y an
ord
er to
le
ave
the
terr
itory
of a
Mem
ber S
tate
.
Para
s. 3
6-38
: 36
. As p
art o
f tha
t ini
tial s
tage
of t
he re
turn
pro
cedu
re, p
riorit
y is
to b
e gi
ven,
exc
ept w
here
oth
erw
ise p
rovi
ded
for,
to v
olun
tary
co
mpl
ianc
e w
ith th
e ob
ligati
on re
sulti
ng fr
om th
at re
turn
dec
ision
, with
Arti
cle
7(1)
of D
irecti
ve 2
008/
115/
EC p
rovi
ding
that
the
deci
sion
mus
t pro
vide
fo
r an
appr
opria
te p
erio
d fo
r vol
unta
ry d
epar
ture
of b
etw
een
seve
n an
d 30
day
s.
37. I
t fol
low
s fro
m A
rticl
e 7(
3) a
nd (4
) of t
hat d
irecti
ve th
at it
is o
nly
in p
artic
ular
circ
umst
ance
s, su
ch a
s whe
re th
ere
is a
risk
of a
bsco
ndin
g, th
at M
embe
r St
ates
may
, firs
t, re
quire
the
addr
esse
e of
a re
turn
dec
ision
to re
port
regu
larly
to th
e au
thor
ities
, dep
osit
an a
dequ
ate
finan
cial
gua
rant
ee, s
ubm
it do
cum
ents
or s
tay
at a
cer
tain
pla
ce o
r, se
cond
, gra
nt a
per
iod
shor
ter t
han
7 da
ys fo
r vol
unta
ry d
epar
ture
or e
ven
refr
ain
from
gra
nting
such
a p
erio
d.
38. I
n th
e la
tter s
ituati
on, b
ut a
lso w
here
the
oblig
ation
to re
turn
has
not
bee
n co
mpl
ied
with
with
in th
e pe
riod
for v
olun
tary
dep
artu
re, A
rticl
e 8(
1)
and
(4) o
f Dire
ctive
200
8/11
5/EC
pro
vide
s tha
t, in
ord
er to
ens
ure
effec
tive
retu
rn p
roce
dure
s, th
ose
prov
ision
s req
uire
the
Mem
ber S
tate
whi
ch h
as
issue
d a
retu
rn d
ecisi
on a
gain
st a
n ill
egal
ly st
ayin
g th
ird-c
ount
ry n
ation
al to
car
ry o
ut th
e re
mov
al b
y ta
king
all
nece
ssar
y m
easu
res i
nclu
ding
, whe
re
appr
opria
te, c
oerc
ive
mea
sure
s, in
a p
ropo
rtion
ate
man
ner a
nd w
ith d
ue re
spec
t for
, int
er a
lia, f
unda
men
tal r
ight
s.
Para
s. 4
0-41
: 40
. Und
er th
e se
cond
subp
arag
raph
of A
rticl
e 15
(1) o
f Dire
ctive
200
8/11
5/EC
, tha
t dep
rivati
on o
f lib
erty
mus
t be
for a
s sho
rt a
per
iod
as p
ossib
le a
nd o
nly
mai
ntai
ned
as lo
ng a
s rem
oval
arr
ange
men
ts a
re in
pro
gres
s and
exe
cute
d w
ith d
ue d
ilige
nce.
Und
er A
rticl
e 15
(3) a
nd (4
), su
ch
depr
ivati
on o
f lib
erty
is su
bjec
t to
revi
ew a
t rea
sona
ble
inte
rval
s of ti
me
and
is to
be
term
inat
ed w
hen
it ap
pear
s tha
t a re
ason
able
pro
spec
t of r
emov
al
no lo
nger
exi
sts.
Arti
cle
15(5
) and
(6) fi
xes t
he m
axim
um d
urati
on o
f det
entio
n at
18
mon
ths,
a li
mit
whi
ch is
impo
sed
on a
ll M
embe
r Sta
tes.
Arti
cle
16(1
) of
that
dire
ctive
furt
her r
equi
res t
hat t
he p
erso
ns c
once
rned
are
to b
e pl
aced
in a
spec
ialis
ed fa
cilit
y an
d, in
any
eve
nt, k
ept s
epar
ated
from
ord
inar
y pr
isone
rs.
41. I
t fol
low
s fro
m th
e fo
rego
ing
that
the
orde
r in
whi
ch th
e st
ages
of t
he re
turn
pro
cedu
re e
stab
lishe
d by
Dire
ctive
200
8/11
5/EC
are
to ta
ke p
lace
co
rres
pond
s to
a gr
adati
on o
f the
mea
sure
s to
be ta
ken
in o
rder
to e
nfor
ce th
e re
turn
dec
ision
, a g
rada
tion
whi
ch g
oes f
rom
the
mea
sure
whi
ch a
llow
s th
e pe
rson
con
cern
ed th
e m
ost l
iber
ty, n
amel
y gr
antin
g a
perio
d fo
r his
volu
ntar
y de
part
ure,
to m
easu
res w
hich
rest
rict t
hat l
iber
ty th
e m
ost,
nam
ely
dete
ntion
in a
spec
ialis
ed fa
cilit
y; th
e pr
inci
ple
of p
ropo
rtion
ality
mus
t be
obse
rved
thro
ugho
ut th
ose
stag
es.
Para
. 58:
Con
sequ
ently
, the
Mem
ber S
tate
s may
not
, in
orde
r to
rem
edy
the
failu
re o
f coe
rciv
e m
easu
res a
dopt
ed in
ord
er to
car
ry o
ut fo
rced
rem
oval
pu
rsua
nt to
Arti
cle
8(4)
of t
hat d
irecti
ve, p
rovi
de fo
r a c
usto
dial
sent
ence
, suc
h as
that
pro
vide
d fo
r by
Artic
le 1
4(5b
) of L
egisl
ative
Dec
ree
No
286/
1998
, on
the
sole
gro
und
that
a th
ird-c
ount
ry n
ation
al c
ontin
ues t
o st
ay il
lega
lly o
n th
e te
rrito
ry o
f a M
embe
r Sta
te a
fter a
n or
der t
o le
ave
the
natio
nal
terr
itory
was
noti
fied
to h
im a
nd th
e pe
riod
gran
ted
in th
at o
rder
has
exp
ired;
rath
er, t
hey
mus
t pur
sue
thei
r effo
rts t
o en
forc
e th
e re
turn
dec
ision
, whi
ch
conti
nues
to p
rodu
ce it
s effe
cts.
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=82038&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=960092http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=82038&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=960092
8 Compilation of jurisprudence: Asylum procedures and theprinciple of non-refoulement
Cour
tCa
se n
ame/
re
fere
nce/
date
Rele
vanc
e/ke
y w
ords
/mai
n po
ints
Case
s cite
d
CJEU
Brah
im S
amba
Di
ouf v
Min
istre
du
Trav
ail,
de l
Empl
oi
et d
e lI
mm
igra
tion,
Ca
se C
-69/
10,
EU:C
:201
1:52
4.
28.7
.201
1
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g fr
om th
e Tr
ibun
al a
dmin
istra
tif (L
uxem
bour
g) c
once
rnin
g th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of A
rticl
e 39
of C
ounc
il Di
recti
ve 2
005/
85/E
C of
1 D
ecem
ber 2
005
on m
inim
um st
anda
rds o
n pr
oced
ures
in M
embe
r Sta
tes f
or g
ranti
ng a
nd w
ithdr
awin
g re
fuge
e st
atus
.
Min
imum
stan
dard
s on
proc
edur
es in
Mem
ber S
tate
s for
gra
nting
and
with
draw
ing
refu
gee
stat
us
no
rem
edy
agai
nst t
he d
ecisi
on to
dea
l with
the
appl
icati
on u
nder
an
acce
lera
ted
proc
edur
e
righ
t to
effec
tive
judi
cial
revi
ew.
Para
s. 4
1-43
: 41
. In
that
rega
rd, i
t is c
lear
from
the
wor
ding
of A
rticl
e 39
(1)(a
) of D
irecti
ve 2
005/
85/E
C an
d, in
par
ticul
ar, f
rom
the
non-
exha
ustiv
e lis
t of
deci
sions
con
tain
ed th
erei
n, th
at th
e co
ncep
t of a
dec
ision
take
n on
[the
] app
licati
on fo
r asy
lum
cov
ers a
serie
s of d
ecisi
ons w
hich
, bec
ause
they
ent
ail
reje
ction
of a
n ap
plic
ation
for a
sylu
m o
r are
take
n at
the
bord
er, a
mou
nt to
a fi
nal d
ecisi
on re
jecti
ng th
e ap
plic
ation
on
the
subs
tanc
e. T
he sa
me
is tr
ue o
f th
e ot
her d
ecisi
ons w
hich
, und
er A
rticl
e 39
(1)(b
) to
(e) o
f Dire
ctive
200
5/85
/EC,
are
exp
ress
ly m
ade
subj
ect t
o th
e rig
ht to
an
effec
tive
judi
cial
rem
edy.
42. A
ccor
ding
ly, th
e de
cisio
ns a
gain
st w
hich
an
appl
ican
t for
asy
lum
mus
t hav
e a
rem
edy
unde
r Arti
cle
39(1
) of D
irecti
ve 2
005/
85/E
C ar
e th
ose
whi
ch
enta
il re
jecti
on o
f the
app
licati
on fo
r asy
lum
for s
ubst
antiv
e re
ason
s or,
as th
e ca
se m
ay b
e, fo
r for
mal
or p
roce
dura
l rea
sons
whi
ch p
recl
ude
any
deci
sion
on th
e su
bsta
nce.
43. I
t fol
low
s tha
t dec
ision
s tha
t are
pre
para
tory
to th
e de
cisio
n on
the
subs
tanc
e or
dec
ision
s per
tain
ing
to th
e or
gani
satio
n of
the
proc
edur
e ar
e no
t co
vere
d by
that
pro
visio
n.
Para
s. 5
6-58
: 56
. Acc
ordi
ngly,
the
abse
nce
of a
rem
edy
at th
at st
age
of th
e pr
oced
ure
does
not
con
stitu
te a
n in
frin
gem
ent o
f the
righ
t to
an e
ffecti
ve
rem
edy,
prov
ided
, how
ever
, tha
t the
lega
lity
of th
e fin
al d
ecisi
on a
dopt
ed in
an
acce
lera
ted
proc
edur
e
and
, in
parti
cula
r, th
e re
ason
s whi
ch le
d th
e co
mpe
tent
aut
horit
y to
reje
ct th
e ap
plic
ation
for a
sylu
m a
s unf
ound
ed
may
be
the
subj
ect o
f a th
orou
gh re
view
by
the
natio
nal c
ourt
, with
in th
e fr
amew
ork
of a
n ac
tion
agai
nst t
he d
ecisi
on re
jecti
ng th
e ap
plic
ation
.
57. A
s reg
ards
judi
cial
revi
ew w
ithin
the
fram
ewor
k of
a su
bsta
ntive
acti
on a
gain
st th
e de
cisio
n re
jecti
ng th
e ap
plic
ation
for i
nter
natio
nal p
rote
ction
, th
e eff
ectiv
enes
s of t
hat a
ction
wou
ld n
ot b
e gu
aran
teed
if
bec
ause
of t
he im
poss
ibili
ty o
f brin
ging
an
appe
al u
nder
Arti
cle
20(5
) of t
he la
w o
f 5 M
ay
2006
th
e re
ason
s whi
ch le
d th
e M
inist
er fo
r Lab
our,
Empl
oym
ent a
nd Im
mig
ratio
n to
exa
min
e th
e m
erits
of t
he a
pplic
ation
und
er a
n ac
cele
rate
d pr
oced
ure
coul
d no
t be
the
subj
ect o
f jud
icia
l rev
iew
. In
a sit
uatio
n su
ch a
s tha
t at i
ssue
in th
e m
ain
proc
eedi
ngs,
the
reas
ons r
elie
d on
by
that
min
ister
in
orde
r to
use
the
acce
lera
ted
proc
edur
e ar
e in
fact
the
sam
e as
thos
e w
hich
led
to th
at a
pplic
ation
bei
ng re
ject
ed. S
uch
a sit
uatio
n w
ould
rend
er re
view
of
the
lega
lity
of th
e de
cisio
n im
poss
ible
, as r
egar
ds b
oth
the
fact
s and
the
law
[].
58. W
hat i
s im
port
ant,
ther
efor
e, is
that
the
reas
ons j
ustif
ying
the
use
of a
n ac
cele
rate
d pr
oced
ure
may
be
effec
tivel
y ch
alle
nged
at a
late
r sta
ge b
efor
e th
e na
tiona
l cou
rt a
nd re
view
ed b
y it
with
in th
e fr
amew
ork
of th
e ac
tion
that
may
be
brou
ght a
gain
st th
e fin
al d
ecisi
on c
losin
g th
e pr
oced
ure
rela
ting
to th
e ap
plic
ation
for a
sylu
m. I
t wou
ld n
ot b
e co
mpa
tible
with
EU
law
if n
ation
al ru
les s
uch
as th
ose
deriv
ing
from
Arti
cle
20(5
) of t
he la
w o
f 5 M
ay 2
006
wer
e to
be
cons
true
d as
pre
clud
ing
all j
udic
ial r
evie
w o
f the
reas
ons w
hich
led
the
com
pete
nt a
dmin
istra
tive
auth
ority
to e
xam
ine
the
appl
icati
on fo
r as
ylum
und
er a
n ac
cele
rate
d pr
oced
ure.
Wils
on [2
006]
, Cas
e C-
506/
04 E
CR I-
8613
, pa
ragr
aphs
60-
62.
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=108325&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1016512http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=108325&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1016512http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=108325&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1016512http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=108325&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1016512
9Compilation of jurisprudence: Asylum procedures and the principle of non-refoulement
Cour
tCa
se n
ame/
re
fere
nce/
date
Rele
vanc
e/ke
y w
ords
/mai
n po
ints
Case
s cite
d
Para
s. 6
2-69
: 62
. With
rega
rd to
the
time
limits
for b
ringi
ng p
roce
edin
gs a
nd th
e po
ssib
ility
of t
wo
leve
ls of
juris
dicti
on, t
he re
ferr
ing
cour
t poi
nts t
o th
e di
ffere
nces
bet
wee
n th
e ac
cele
rate
d pr
oced
ure
and
the
ordi
nary
pro
cedu
re fo
r dea
ling
with
an
appl
icati
on fo
r asy
lum
. In
parti
cula
r, it
draw
s atte
ntion
to
the
fact
that
the
actio
n ag
ains
t the
fina
l dec
ision
mus
t be
brou
ght w
ithin
a p
erio
d of
15
days
from
noti
ficati
on o
f tha
t dec
ision
, as o
ppos
ed to
with
in
1 m
onth
in th
e ca
se o
f the
ord
inar
y pr
oced
ure,
and
that
the
deci
sions
of t
he T
ribun
al a
dmin
istra
tif ta
ken
in re
latio
n to
an
acce
lera
ted
proc
edur
e ar
e no
t op
en to
app
eal.
63. T
he g
over
nmen
ts th
at h
ave
subm
itted
obs
erva
tions
and
the
Com
miss
ion
mai
ntai
n th
at a
sing
le c
ourt
acti
on sa
tisfie
s the
min
imum
requ
ired
by th
e pr
inci
ple
that
effe
ctive
judi
cial
pro
tecti
on sh
ould
be
guar
ante
ed a
nd su
bmit
that
a 1
5-da
y tim
e lim
it, in
this
inst
ance
, doe
s not
am
ount
to a
n in
frin
gem
ent
of th
at p
rinci
ple,
eith
er fr
om th
e po
int o
f vie
w o
f the
cas
e-la
w o
f the
Eur
opea
n Co
urt o
f Hum
an R
ight
s or t
hat o
f the
Cou
rt o
f Jus
tice.
64. I
t sho
uld
be d
eter
min
ed w
heth
er E
U la
w p
recl
udes
nati
onal
rule
s suc
h as
thos
e at
issu
e in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s ins
ofar
as t
he se
lecti
on o
f an
acce
lera
ted
proc
edur
e in
stea
d of
the
ordi
nary
pro
cedu
re e
ntai
ls di
ffere
nces
the
effec
t of w
hich
is, i
n es
senc
e, th
at a
less
favo
urab
le tr
eatm
ent i
s res
erve
d fo
r the
app
lican
t for
asy
lum
as r
egar
ds th
e rig
ht to
an
effec
tive
rem
edy,
since
the
appl
ican
t has
onl
y 15
day
s with
in w
hich
to b
ring
an a
ction
and
doe
s not
ha
ve th
e be
nefit
of t
wo
leve
ls of
juris
dicti
on.
65. I
n th
at re
gard
, it m
ust b
e st
ated
at t
he o
utse
t tha
t the
diff
eren
ces t
hat e
xist
, in
the
natio
nal r
ules
, bet
wee
n th
e ac
cele
rate
d pr
oced
ure
and
the
ordi
nary
pro
cedu
re, t
he e
ffect
of w
hich
is th
at th
e tim
e lim
it fo
r brin
ging
an
actio
n is
shor
tene
d an
d th
at th
ere
is on
ly o
ne le
vel o
f jur
isdic
tion,
are
co
nnec
ted
with
the
natu
re o
f the
pro
cedu
re p
ut in
pla
ce. T
he p
rovi
sions
at i
ssue
in th
e m
ain
proc
eedi
ngs a
re in
tend
ed to
ens
ure
that
unf
ound
ed o
r in
adm
issib
le a
pplic
ation
s for
asy
lum
are
pro
cess
ed m
ore
quic
kly,
in o
rder
that
app
licati
ons s
ubm
itted
by
pers
ons w
ho h
ave
good
gro
unds
for b
enefi
ting
from
refu
gee
stat
us m
ay b
e pr
oces
sed
mor
e effi
cien
tly.
66. A
s reg
ards
the
fact
that
the
time
limit
for b
ringi
ng a
n ac
tion
is 15
day
s in
the
case
of a
n ac
cele
rate
d pr
oced
ure,
whi
lst it
is 1
mon
th in
the
case
of
a de
cisio
n ad
opte
d un
der t
he o
rdin
ary
proc
edur
e, th
e im
port
ant p
oint
, as t
he a
dvoc
ate-
gene
ral h
as st
ated
in p
oint
63
of h
is op
inio
n, is
that
the
perio
d pr
escr
ibed
mus
t be
suffi
cien
t in
prac
tical
term
s to
enab
le th
e ap
plic
ant t
o pr
epar
e an
d br
ing
an e
ffecti
ve a
ction
.
67. W
ith re
gard
to a
bbre
viat
ed p
roce
dure
s, a
15-
day
time
limit
for b
ringi
ng a
n ac
tion
does
not
seem
, gen
eral
ly, to
be
insu
ffici
ent i
n pr
actic
al te
rms t
o pr
epar
e an
d br
ing
an e
ffecti
ve a
ction
and
app
ears
reas
onab
le a
nd p
ropo
rtion
ate
in re
latio
n to
the
right
s and
inte
rest
s inv
olve
d.
68. I
t is,
how
ever
, for
the
natio
nal c
ourt
to d
eter
min
e
shou
ld th
at ti
me
limit
prov
e, in
a g
iven
situ
ation
, to
be in
suffi
cien
t in
view
of t
he
circ
umst
ance
s w
heth
er th
at e
lem
ent i
s suc
h as
to ju
stify
, on
its o
wn,
uph
oldi
ng th
e ac
tion
brou
ght i
ndire
ctly
aga
inst
the
deci
sion
to e
xam
ine
the
appl
icati
on fo
r asy
lum
und
er a
n ac
cele
rate
d pr
oced
ure,
so th
at, i
n up
hold
ing
the
actio
n, th
e na
tiona
l cou
rt w
ould
ord
er th
at th
e ap
plic
ation
be
exam
ined
un
der t
he o
rdin
ary
proc
edur
e.
69. A
s reg
ards
the
fact
that
the
appl
ican
t for
asy
lum
has
the
bene
fit o
f tw
o le
vels
of ju
risdi
ction
onl
y in
rela
tion
to a
dec
ision
ado
pted
und
er th
e or
dina
ry
proc
edur
e, D
irecti
ve 2
005/
85/E
C do
es n
ot re
quire
ther
e to
be
two
leve
ls of
juris
dicti
on. A
ll th
at m
atter
s is t
hat t
here
shou
ld b
e a
rem
edy
befo
re a
judi
cial
bo
dy, a
s is g
uara
ntee
d by
Arti
cle
39 o
f Dire
ctive
200
5/85
/EC.
The
prin
cipl
e of
effe
ctive
judi
cial
pro
tecti
on a
fford
s an
indi
vidu
al a
righ
t of a
cces
s to
a co
urt
or tr
ibun
al b
ut n
ot to
a n
umbe
r of l
evel
s of j
urisd
ictio
n.
10 Compilation of jurisprudence: Asylum procedures and theprinciple of non-refoulement
Cour
tCa
se n
ame/
re
fere
nce/
date
Rele
vanc
e/ke
y w
ords
/mai
n po
ints
Case
s cite
d
CJEU
(G
rand
Ch
ambe
r)
N.S
. v S
ecre
tary
of
Sta
te fo
r the
Ho
me
Depa
rtm
ent
and
M.E
.and
O
ther
s v R
efug
ee
Appl
icati
ons
Com
miss
ione
r, M
inist
er fo
r Jus
tice,
Eq
ualit
y an
d La
w
Refo
rm, J
oine
d Ca
ses C
-411
/10
and
C-49
3/10
, EU
:C:2
011:
865.
21.1
2.20
11
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g fr
om th
e Co
urt o
f App
eal (
Engl
and
and
Wal
es) (
civi
l div
ision
) (U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m) a
nd th
e Hi
gh C
ourt
(Ir
elan
d) re
latin
g to
the
crite
ria a
nd m
echa
nism
s for
det
erm
inin
g th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g an
asy
lum
app
licati
on lo
dged
in o
ne o
f the
M
embe
r Sta
tes b
y a
third
-cou
ntry
nati
onal
.
Com
mon
Eur
opea
n As
ylum
Sys
tem
R
egul
ation
(EC)
No
343/
2003
tr
ansf
er o
f an
asyl
um se
eker
to th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
c
once
pt o
f sa
fe
coun
trie
s.
Para
. 69:
th
e de
cisio
n by
a M
embe
r Sta
te o
n th
e ba
sis o
f Arti
cle
3(2)
of R
egul
ation
No
343/
2003
whe
ther
to e
xam
ine
an a
sylu
m a
pplic
ation
whi
ch is
no
t its
resp
onsib
ility
acc
ordi
ng to
the
crite
ria la
id d
own
in C
hapt
er II
I of t
hat r
egul
ation
, im
plem
ents
Eur
opea
n U
nion
law
for t
he p
urpo
ses o
f Arti
cle
6 TE
U (2
) and
/or A
rticl
e 51
of t
he c
hart
er.
Para
. 108
: Th
e M
embe
r Sta
te in
whi
ch th
e as
ylum
seek
er is
pre
sent
mus
t, ho
wev
er, e
nsur
e th
at it
doe
s not
wor
sen
a sit
uatio
n w
here
the
fund
amen
tal
right
s of t
hat a
pplic
ant h
ave
been
infr
inge
d by
usin
g a
proc
edur
e fo
r det
erm
inin
g th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
, whi
ch ta
kes a
n un
reas
onab
le le
ngth
of
time.
If n
eces
sary
, the
firs
t men
tione
d M
embe
r Sta
te m
ust i
tsel
f exa
min
e th
e ap
plic
ation
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith th
e pr
oced
ure
laid
dow
n in
Arti
cle
3(2)
of
Regu
latio
n N
o 34
3/20
03.
Para
s. 1
17-1
21:
117.
As n
oted
by
the
EHRC
(3),
that
que
stion
aris
es b
ecau
se o
f the
pos
ition
take
n by
the
Secr
etar
y of
Sta
te b
efor
e th
e Hi
gh C
ourt
of
Justi
ce (E
ngla
nd a
nd W
ales
) (Ad
min
istra
tive
Cour
t) th
at th
e pr
ovisi
ons o
f the
cha
rter
do
not a
pply
in th
e U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m.
118.
Eve
n if
the
Secr
etar
y of
Sta
te n
o lo
nger
mai
ntai
ned
that
pos
ition
bef
ore
the
Cour
t of A
ppea
l (En
glan
d an
d W
ales
) (ci
vil d
ivisi
on),
it m
ust b
e no
ted
that
Pro
toco
l (N
o 30
) pro
vide
s, in
Arti
cle
1(1)
, tha
t the
cha
rter
is n
ot to
ext
end
the
abili
ty o
f the
Cou
rt o
f Jus
tice
or a
ny c
ourt
or t
ribun
al o
f Pol
and
or o
f th
e U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m to
find
that
the
law
s, re
gula
tions
adm
inist
rativ
e pr
ovisi
ons,
pra
ctice
s or a
ction
of P
olan
d or
of t
he U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m a
re in
cons
isten
t w
ith th
e fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts,
free
dom
s and
prin
cipl
es th
at it
affi
rms.
119.
Acc
ordi
ng to
the
wor
ding
of t
hat p
rovi
sion,
as n
oted
by
the
advo
cate
-gen
eral
in p
oint
s 169
and
170
of h
er o
pini
on in
Cas
e C-
411/
10, P
roto
col
(No
30) d
oes n
ot c
all i
nto
ques
tion
the
appl
icab
ility
of t
he c
hart
er in
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
or i
n Po
land
, a p
ositi
on w
hich
is c
onfir
med
by
the
reci
tals
in
the
prea
mbl
e to
that
pro
toco
l. Th
us, a
ccor
ding
to th
e th
ird re
cita
l in
the
prea
mbl
e to
Pro
toco
l (N
o 30
), Ar
ticle
6 T
EU re
quire
s the
cha
rter
to b
e ap
plie
d an
d in
terp
rete
d by
the
cour
ts o
f Pol
and
and
of th
e U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m st
rictly
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith th
e ex
plan
ation
s ref
erre
d to
in th
at a
rticl
e. In
add
ition
, ac
cord
ing
to th
e six
th re
cita
l in
the
prea
mbl
e to
that
pro
toco
l, th
e ch
arte
r rea
ffirm
s the
righ
ts, f
reed
oms a
nd p
rinci
ples
reco
gnise
d in
the
Uni
on a
nd
mak
es th
ose
right
s mor
e vi
sible
, but
doe
s not
cre
ate
new
righ
ts o
r prin
cipl
es.
120.
In th
ose
circ
umst
ance
s, A
rticl
e 1(
1) o
f Pro
toco
l (N
o 30
) exp
lain
s Arti
cle
51 o
f the
cha
rter
with
rega
rd to
the
scop
e th
ereo
f and
doe
s not
inte
nd to
ex
empt
Pol
and
or th
e U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m fr
om th
e ob
ligati
on to
com
ply
with
the
prov
ision
s of t
he c
hart
er o
r to
prev
ent a
cou
rt o
f one
of t
hose
Mem
ber
Stat
es fr
om e
nsur
ing
com
plia
nce
with
thos
e pr
ovisi
ons.
121.
Sin
ce th
e rig
hts r
efer
red
to in
the
case
s in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s do
not f
orm
par
t of T
itle
IV o
f the
cha
rter
, the
re is
no
need
to ru
le o
n th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of A
rticl
e 1(
2) o
f Pro
toco
l (N
o 30
).
(2 ) T
reat
y on
Eur
opea
n U
nion
.(3 )
Equ
ality
and
Hum
an R
ight
s Com
miss
ion.
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=117187&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1018338http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=117187&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1018338http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=117187&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1018338http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=117187&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1018338http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=117187&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1018338http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=117187&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1018338http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=117187&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1018338http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=117187&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1018338http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=117187&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1018338http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=117187&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1018338
11Compilation of jurisprudence: Asylum procedures and the principle of non-refoulement
Cour
tCa
se n
ame/
re
fere
nce/
date
Rele
vanc
e/ke
y w
ords
/mai
n po
ints
Case
s cite
d
CJEU
Mig
ratio
nsve
rket
v
Nur
ije K
astr
ati,
Vald
rina
Kast
rati
and
Oth
ers,
Ca
se C
-620
/10,
EU
:C:2
012:
265.
3.5.
2012
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g fr
om th
e Ka
mm
arr
tten
i Sto
ckho
lm
Mig
ratio
nsv
erdo
mst
olen
(Sw
eden
) rel
ating
to a
n as
ylum
ap
plic
ation
bei
ng lo
dged
in a
Mem
ber S
tate
oth
er th
an th
e st
ate
resp
onsib
le b
ut th
en w
ithdr
awn.
With
draw
al o
f asy
lum
app
licati
on
prio
r to
acce
ptan
ce o
f tak
e ch
arge
requ
est
Dub
lin ru
les n
o lo
nger
app
licab
le.
Para
. 45:
in
prin
cipl
e ex
haus
tivel
y, th
e sit
uatio
ns in
whi
ch th
e ob
ligati
ons o
n th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g an
asy
lum
app
licati
on to
ta
ke c
harg
e o
r ta
ke b
ack
an
appl
ican
t who
has
lodg
ed a
n as
ylum
app
licati
on in
a M
embe
r Sta
te o
ther
than
the
stat
e re
spon
sible
may
cea
se. H
owev
er,
they
pre
supp
ose
the
exist
ence
of a
n as
ylum
app
licati
on w
hich
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le m
ust e
xam
ine,
is in
the
proc
ess o
f exa
min
ing
or o
n w
hich
it
has a
lread
y ta
ken
a de
cisio
n.
Para
. 47:
th
e w
ithdr
awal
of a
n as
ylum
app
licati
on w
hich
occ
urs i
n ci
rcum
stan
ces s
uch
as th
ose
in th
e m
ain
proc
eedi
ngs i
n th
e pr
esen
t cas
e, th
at is
to
say
befo
re th
e re
ques
ted
Mem
ber S
tate
has
agr
eed
to ta
ke c
harg
e of
the
asyl
um se
eker
, has
the
effec
t tha
t Reg
ulati
on N
o 34
3/20
03 c
an n
o lo
nger
be
appl
icab
le.
CJEU
H. I.
D. a
nd B
. A.
v Re
fuge
e Ap
plic
ation
s Co
mm
issio
ner
and
Oth
ers,
Ca
se C
-175
/11,
EU
:C:2
013:
45.
31.1
.201
3
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g fr
om th
e Hi
gh C
ourt
(Ire
land
) con
cern
ing
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
Arti
cles
23
and
39 o
f Cou
ncil
Dire
ctive
20
05/8
5/EC
of 1
Dec
embe
r 200
5 on
min
imum
stan
dard
s on
proc
edur
es in
Mem
ber S
tate
s for
gra
nting
and
with
draw
ing
refu
gee
stat
us.
Dire
ctive
200
5/85
/EC
A
rticl
e 23
p
ossib
ility
of p
rioriti
sing
the
proc
essin
g of
asy
lum
app
licati
ons
righ
t to
an e
ffecti
ve ju
dici
al re
med
y.
Para
s. 7
2-73
: 72
. In
addi
tion,
as a
ppea
rs fr
om re
cita
l 17
in th
e pr
eam
ble
to D
irecti
ve 2
005/
85/E
C, th
e Eu
rope
an U
nion
legi
slatu
re in
trod
uced
the
conc
ept
of s
afe
coun
try
of o
rigin
ac
cord
ing
to w
hich
, whe
n a
third
cou
ntry
may
be
rega
rded
as s
afe,
Mem
ber S
tate
s sho
uld
be a
ble
to d
esig
nate
it a
s saf
e an
d pr
esum
e th
at a
par
ticul
ar a
pplic
ant w
ill b
e sa
fe th
ere.
The
Eur
opea
n U
nion
legi
slatu
re th
eref
ore
prov
ided
und
er A
rticl
e 23
(4)(c
) of t
hat d
irecti
ve
that
Mem
ber S
tate
s may
dec
ide
that
an
exam
inati
on p
roce
dure
be
prio
ritise
d or
acc
eler
ated
in th
e ca
se w
here
the
asyl
um a
pplic
ation
is c
onsid
ered
un
foun
ded
beca
use
the
appl
ican
t is f
rom
a sa
fe c
ount
ry o
f orig
in w
ithin
the
term
s of t
hat d
irecti
ve.
73. I
t fol
low
s, a
s the
adv
ocat
e-ge
nera
l has
not
ed in
poi
nt 6
7 of
his
opin
ion,
that
the
natio
nalit
y of
the
appl
ican
t for
asy
lum
is a
n el
emen
t whi
ch m
ay b
e ta
ken
into
con
sider
ation
to ju
stify
the
prio
ritise
d or
acc
eler
ated
pro
cess
ing
of a
n as
ylum
app
licati
on.
Para
. 84:
It i
s com
mon
gro
und,
rega
rd b
eing
had
to th
e ob
serv
ation
s sub
mitt
ed to
the
Cour
t bot
h by
the
appl
ican
ts in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s and
by
the
Mem
ber S
tate
s and
the
insti
tutio
ns, t
hat t
he R
efug
ee A
ppea
ls Tr
ibun
al m
eets
the
crite
ria o
f est
ablis
hmen
t by
law,
per
man
ence
and
app
licati
on o
f rul
es o
f la
w.
Para
s. 8
9-91
: 89
. In
that
rega
rd, t
he O
RAC
s (4 )
parti
cipa
tion
as a
par
ty to
the
appe
al p
roce
edin
gs b
efor
e th
e Re
fuge
e Ap
peal
s Trib
unal
to d
efen
d th
e de
cisio
n ta
ken
at fi
rst i
nsta
nce
is no
t an
abso
lute
requ
irem
ent.
90. B
y co
ntra
st, i
t is i
mpo
rtan
t to
note
that
Sec
tion
16(5
) of t
he re
fuge
e ac
t pro
vide
s tha
t the
Ref
ugee
App
licati
ons C
omm
issio
ner m
ust p
rovi
de to
the
Refu
gee
Appe
als T
ribun
al c
opie
s of a
ll re
port
s, d
ocum
ents
or r
epre
sent
ation
s in
writi
ng su
bmitt
ed to
him
und
er S
ectio
n 11
of t
hat a
ct a
s wel
l as a
writt
en
indi
catio
n of
the
natu
re a
nd so
urce
of a
ny o
ther
info
rmati
on c
once
rnin
g th
e ap
plic
ation
of w
hich
he
has b
ecom
e aw
are
in th
e co
urse
of h
is in
vesti
gatio
n.
In a
ccor
danc
e w
ith S
ectio
n 16
(8),
the
Refu
gee
Appe
als T
ribun
al p
rovi
des t
he a
pplic
ant a
nd h
is so
licito
r as w
ell a
s the
Uni
ted
Nati
ons H
igh
Com
miss
ione
r fo
r Ref
ugee
s, a
t its
requ
est,
with
cop
ies o
f tho
se d
ocum
ents
.
91. F
urth
erm
ore,
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith S
ectio
n 16
(10)
and
(11)
(a) a
nd (c
) of t
he re
fuge
e ac
t, th
e Re
fuge
e Ap
peal
s Trib
unal
may
also
hol
d a
hear
ing
durin
g w
hich
it m
ay d
irect
any
per
son
who
se e
vide
nce
is re
quire
d to
atte
nd, a
nd h
ear b
oth
the
appl
ican
t and
the
Refu
gee
Appl
icati
ons C
omm
issio
ner p
rese
nt
thei
r cas
e in
per
son
or th
roug
h a
lega
l rep
rese
ntati
ve. A
s a c
onse
quen
ce, e
ach
part
y ha
s the
opp
ortu
nity
to m
ake
the
Refu
gee
Appe
als T
ribun
al a
war
e of
an
y in
form
ation
nec
essa
ry to
the
succ
ess o
f the
app
licati
on fo
r asy
lum
or t
o th
e de
fenc
e.
Para
. 93:
It f
ollo
ws t
hat t
he R
efug
ee A
ppea
ls Tr
ibun
al h
as a
bro
ad d
iscre
tion,
sinc
e it
take
s cog
nisa
nce
of b
oth
ques
tions
of f
act a
nd q
uesti
ons o
f law
and
ru
les o
n th
e ev
iden
ce su
bmitt
ed to
it, i
n re
latio
n to
whi
ch it
enj
oys a
disc
retio
n.
(4 ) O
ffice
of t
he R
efug
ee A
pplic
ation
s Com
miss
ione
r.
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=122392&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1013166http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=122392&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1013166http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=122392&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1013166http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=122392&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1013166http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=133247&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1016712http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=133247&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1016712http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=133247&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1016712http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=133247&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1016712http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=133247&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1016712
12 Compilation of jurisprudence: Asylum procedures and theprinciple of non-refoulement
Cour
tCa
se n
ame/
re
fere
nce/
date
Rele
vanc
e/ke
y w
ords
/mai
n po
ints
Case
s cite
d
Para
s. 9
7-10
1: 9
7. T
he C
ourt
has
also
stat
ed th
at su
ch g
uara
ntee
s of i
ndep
ende
nce
and
impa
rtial
ity re
quire
rule
s, p
artic
ular
ly a
s reg
ards
the
com
positi
on
of th
e bo
dy a
nd th
e ap
poin
tmen
t, le
ngth
of s
ervi
ce a
nd th
e gr
ound
s for
abs
tenti
on, r
ejec
tion
and
dism
issal
of i
ts m
embe
rs, i
n or
der t
o di
spel
any
re
ason
able
dou
bt in
the
min
ds o
f ind
ivid
uals
as to
the
impe
rvio
usne
ss o
f tha
t bod
y to
ext
erna
l fac
tors
and
its n
eutr
ality
with
resp
ect t
o th
e in
tere
sts
befo
re it
. In
that
rega
rd, i
n or
der t
o co
nsid
er th
e co
nditi
on re
gard
ing
the
inde
pend
ence
of t
he b
ody
mak
ing
the
refe
renc
e as
met
, the
cas
e-la
w re
quire
s,
inte
r alia
, tha
t dism
issal
s of m
embe
rs o
f tha
t bod
y sh
ould
be
dete
rmin
ed b
y ex
pres
s leg
islati
ve p
rovi
sions
(see
ord
er in
Cas
e C-
109/
07 P
ilato
[200
8] E
CR
I-350
3, p
arag
raph
24
and
the
case
-law
cite
d).
98. I
n th
e pr
esen
t cas
e, S
ectio
n 15
(2) o
f the
refu
gee
act p
rovi
des t
hat t
he R
efug
ee A
ppea
ls Tr
ibun
al is
inde
pend
ent i
n th
e pe
rfor
man
ce o
f its
func
tions
. In
add
ition
, tho
ugh
the
min
ister
reta
ins r
esid
ual d
iscre
tion
to g
rant
refu
gee
stat
us d
espi
te a
neg
ative
dec
ision
on
an a
sylu
m a
pplic
ation
, it s
houl
d be
no
ted
that
, whe
re th
e Re
fuge
e Ap
peal
s Trib
unal
find
s in
favo
ur o
f the
app
lican
t for
asy
lum
, the
min
ister
is b
ound
by
the
deci
sion
of th
at tr
ibun
al a
nd is
th
eref
ore
not e
mpo
wer
ed to
revi
ew it
.
99. A
s for
the
rule
s gov
erni
ng th
e ap
poin
tmen
t of m
embe
rs o
f the
Ref
ugee
App
eals
Trib
unal
, the
se a
re n
ot c
apab
le o
f cal
ling
into
que
stion
the
inde
pend
ence
of t
hat t
ribun
al. T
he m
embe
rs o
f the
trib
unal
are
app
oint
ed fo
r a sp
ecifi
c te
rm fr
om a
mon
g pe
rson
s with
at l
east
5 y
ears
exp
erie
nce
as
a pr
actis
ing
barr
ister
or a
pra
ctisin
g so
licito
r, an
d th
e ci
rcum
stan
ces o
f the
ir ap
poin
tmen
t by
the
min
ister
do
not d
iffer
subs
tanti
ally
from
the
prac
tice
in
man
y ot
her M
embe
r Sta
tes.
100.
With
rega
rd to
the
issue
of t
he re
mov
al o
f mem
bers
of t
he R
efug
ee A
ppea
ls Tr
ibun
al, i
t fol
low
s fro
m p
arag
raph
7 o
f the
seco
nd sc
hedu
le to
the
refu
gee
act t
hat t
he o
rdin
ary
mem
bers
of t
hat t
ribun
al m
ay b
e re
mov
ed fr
om o
ffice
by
the
min
ister
. The
min
ister
s de
cisio
n m
ust s
tate
the
reas
ons f
or
such
rem
oval
.
101.
As n
oted
by
the
advo
cate
-gen
eral
at p
oint
88
of h
is op
inio
n, th
e ca
ses i
n w
hich
the
mem
bers
of t
he R
efug
ee A
ppea
ls Tr
ibun
al m
ay b
e re
mov
ed fr
om
office
are
not
defi
ned
prec
isely
by
the
refu
gee
act.
Nor
doe
s the
refu
gee
act s
peci
fy w
heth
er th
e de
cisio
n to
rem
ove
a m
embe
r of t
he R
efug
ee A
ppea
ls Tr
ibun
al is
am
enab
le to
judi
cial
revi
ew.
Para
. 103
: In
the
pres
ent c
ase,
und
er S
ectio
n 5
of th
e Ill
egal
Imm
igra
nts (
Traffi
ckin
g) A
ct 2
000,
app
lican
ts fo
r asy
lum
may
also
que
stion
the
valid
ity o
f re
com
men
datio
ns o
f the
Ref
ugee
App
licati
ons C
omm
issio
ner a
nd d
ecisi
ons o
f the
Ref
ugee
App
eals
Trib
unal
bef
ore
the
High
Cou
rt, t
he d
ecisi
ons o
f w
hich
may
be
appe
aled
to th
e Su
prem
e Co
urt.
The
exist
ence
of t
hese
mea
ns o
f obt
aini
ng re
dres
s app
ear,
in th
emse
lves
, to
be c
apab
le o
f pro
tecti
ng
the
Refu
gee
Appe
als T
ribun
al a
gain
st p
oten
tial t
empt
ation
s to
give
in to
ext
erna
l int
erve
ntion
or p
ress
ure
liabl
e to
jeop
ardi
se th
e in
depe
nden
ce o
f its
m
embe
rs.
CJEU
The
Que
en, o
n th
e ap
plic
ation
of M
A an
d O
ther
s v S
ecre
tary
of
Stat
e fo
r the
Hom
e De
part
men
t, Ca
se
C-64
8/11
,
EU:C
:201
3:36
7.
6.6.
2013
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g fr
om th
e Co
urt o
f App
eal (
Engl
and
and
Wal
es) (
civi
l div
ision
) (U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m) r
elati
ng to
un
acco
mpa
nied
min
ors.
Una
ccom
pani
ed m
inor
re
spon
sible
Mem
ber S
tate
is w
here
a si
blin
g or
fam
ily m
embe
r is l
egal
ly p
rese
nt.
Para
s. 4
6-48
: 46
. The
firs
t of t
he c
riter
ia e
stab
lishe
d in
Cha
pter
III o
f Reg
ulati
on N
o 34
3/20
03 is
that
laid
dow
n in
Arti
cle
6, w
hich
serv
es to
det
erm
ine
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le fo
r exa
min
ing
an a
pplic
ation
lodg
ed b
y an
una
ccom
pani
ed m
inor
with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f Arti
cle
2(h)
of t
hat r
egul
ation
.
47. A
s pro
vide
d in
the
first
par
agra
ph o
f Arti
cle
6, th
e M
embe
r Sta
te re
spon
sible
for e
xam
inin
g an
app
licati
on lo
dged
by
an u
nacc
ompa
nied
min
or is
to b
e th
at w
here
a m
embe
r of h
is fa
mily
is le
gally
pre
sent
, pro
vide
d th
at th
is is
in th
e be
st in
tere
st o
f the
min
or.
48. I
n th
e pr
esen
t cas
e it
is ap
pare
nt fr
om th
e or
der f
or re
fere
nce
that
no
mem
ber o
f the
fam
ilies
of t
he a
ppel
lant
s in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s is l
egal
ly
pres
ent i
n a
Mem
ber S
tate
, and
the
Mem
ber S
tate
resp
onsib
le m
ust t
here
fore
be
desig
nate
d on
the
basis
of t
he se
cond
par
agra
ph o
f Arti
cle
6 of
Re
gula
tion
No
343/
2003
, whi
ch p
rovi
des t
hat r
espo
nsib
ility
is to
lie
with
the
Mem
ber S
tate
w
here
the
min
or h
as lo
dged
his
or h
er a
pplic
ation
for
asyl
um.
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=138088&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1013027http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=138088&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1013027http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=138088&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1013027http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=138088&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1013027http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=138088&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1013027
13Compilation of jurisprudence: Asylum procedures and the principle of non-refoulement
Cour
tCa
se n
ame/
re
fere
nce/
date
Rele
vanc
e/ke
y w
ords
/mai
n po
ints
Case
s cite
d
CJEU
(G
rand
Ch
ambe
r)
Euro
pean
Com
miss
ion
and
Oth
ers v
Yas
sin
Abdu
llah
Kadi
, Joi
ned
Case
s C-5
84/1
0 P,
C-
593/
10 P
and
C-
595/
10 P,
EU
:C:2
013:
518.
18.7
.201
3
Judg
men
t afte
r a re
fere
nce
for a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g fr
om th
e Eu
rope
an C
omm
issio
n, th
e Co
unci
l of t
he E
urop
ean
Uni
on a
nd th
e U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m o
f Gre
at
Brita
in a
nd N
orth
ern
Irela
nd.
Fund
amen
tal r
ight
s ri
ght t
o eff
ectiv
e ju
dici
al p
rote
ction
re
spec
t for
the
right
s of t
he d
efen
ce.
Para
s. 9
7-98
: 97
. As s
tate
d by
the
Gene
ral C
ourt
in p
arag
raph
s 125
, 126
and
171
of t
he ju
dgm
ent u
nder
app
eal,
the
Cour
t hel
d, in
par
agra
ph 3
26 o
f [
], th
at th
e co
urts
of t
he E
urop
ean
Uni
on m
ust,
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith th
e po
wer
s con
ferr
ed o
n th
em b
y th
e tr
eatie
s, e
nsur
e th
e re
view
, in
prin
cipl
e th
e fu
ll re
view
, of t
he la
wfu
lnes
s of a
ll U
nion
act
s in
the
light
of t
he fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts f
orm
ing
an in
tegr
al p
art o
f the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
lega
l ord
er, i
nclu
ding
re
view
of s
uch
mea
sure
s as a
re d
esig
ned
to g
ive
effec
t to
reso
lutio
ns a
dopt
ed b
y th
e Se
curit
y Co
unci
l und
er C
hapt
er V
II of
the
Char
ter o
f the
Uni
ted
Nati
ons [
].
That
obl
igati
on is
exp
ress
ly la
id d
own
by th
e se
cond
par
agra
ph o
f Arti
cle
275
TFEU
(5).
98. T
hose
fund
amen
tal r
ight
s inc
lude
, int
er a
lia, r
espe
ct fo
r the
righ
ts o
f the
def
ence
and
the
right
to e
ffecti
ve ju
dici
al p
rote
ction
.
Para
s. 1
11-1
19:
111.
In p
roce
edin
gs re
latin
g to
the
adop
tion
of th
e d
top related