Effective Remedies under EU Law & ECtHR EDAL Conference 2014 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
effective remedies under eu law ecthr
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Effective Remedies under EU Law & ECtHR EDAL Conference 2014 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Nov 20, 2022 27 likes •248 views

Effective Remedies under EU Law & ECtHR EDAL Conference 2014 Dublin, 17 th , 18 th January 2014 cathryn.costello@law.ox.ac.uk Two Supranational Courts Sources: C Costello The Asylum Procedures Directive in Legal Context: Equivocal

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Effective Remedies under EU Law & ECtHR

EDAL Conference 2014 Dublin, 17th, 18th January 2014 cathryn.costello@law.ox.ac.uk

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Two Supranational Courts

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Sources:

  • C Costello ‘The Asylum Procedures Directive in Legal

Context: Equivocal Standards Meet General Principles’ in Baldaccini, Guild, Toner (eds) Whose Freedom, Security and Justice? EU immigration and asylum law after 1999 (Hart publishing, 2007), pp. 151-193.

  • Available as UNHCR New Issues in Refugee

Research Working Paper No 134, November 2006, at <www.unhcr.org/research/RESEARCH/4552f1cc2.pdf >

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Sources:

  • C Costello, 'Courting Access to Asylum

in Europe: Recent Supranational Jurisprudence Explored ' (2012) Human Rights Law Review 287

  • C Costello, 'The Ruling of the Court of

Justice in NS/ME on the fundamental rights of asylum seekers under the Dublin Regulation: Finally, an end to blind trust across the EU?' (2012) Asiel- en Migrantenrecht 83

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Sources:

  • FRA / ECtHR Handbook on European

Law relating to asylum, borders and immigration (2013), Chapter 4 http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Handb

  • ok_asylum_ENG.pdf
slide-6
SLIDE 6

Key Distinctions

ECHR

  • Article 6 inapplicable
  • Article 3 + 13 –

normal source of effective remedy

  • Fact-sensitive

determinations CJEU

  • General principles –

general scope

  • Strong right to effective

judicial protection

  • National procedural

autonomy subject to equivalence & effectiveness

  • Harmonisation? EU PD,

Recast PD

slide-7
SLIDE 7

ACCESS TO PROTECTION

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Access to Protection

Strasbourg

  • Hirsi and Others v. Italy,

Application no. 27765/09 (access - jurisdiction)

  • M.S.S. v. Belgium and

Greece, June 2010, Application no. 30696/09 (access – Dublin) Luxembourg

  • EU – jurisdiction without

territory?

  • Case C-411/10 NS C-

493/10 ME 21 December 2011

  • Case C-648/11 MA &

Others v UK ‘best interests’ (2013) Mirrors Strasbourg BUT

  • ‘Systemic Breach’
slide-9
SLIDE 9

Key question

  • Has Luxembourg undermined the Strasbourg

caselaw?

  • CC: ‘The CJEU test seems more difficult to meet that

the ECtHR, if we read ‘systemic deficiencies’ as an additional requirement to be met. However, I urge that such a reading be rejected. Luxembourg has no mandate to interpret Article 4 EUCFR in a manner that undermines Strasbourg’s interpretation of Article 3

  • ECHR. Moreover, the CJEU itself in NS/ME was

emphatic that it was faithful to MSS. Accordingly, we should adopt an interpretation of the Luxembourg test which does not treat ‘systemic deficiency’ as an additional hurdle for applicants, but rather an element

  • f the risk assessment.’
slide-10
SLIDE 10

UK Supreme Court (pending)

Appeal from Court of Appeal ruling in EM (Eritrea) v SSHD [2012] EWCA Civ 1336

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Hussein v Netherlands & Italy

  • Application 27725/10, Mohammed

Hussein et al. v NL + ITA (2 April 2013)

  • Transfer to Italy – Rule 39 granted
  • Inadmissible
  • MSS threshold not met
  • See Para 78
slide-12
SLIDE 12

Daytbegova v Austria (2013)

  • Application 6198/12 Daytbegova v

Austria, 4 June 2013

  • Rule 39 granted to stay return to Italy
  • Para 66 – Italian authorities aware of

vulnerability and could assist

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Halimi v Austria & Italy (2013)

  • Application No 53852/11 Halimi v Austria

& Italy 18 June 2013

  • Similar reasoning
slide-14
SLIDE 14

Abubeker v Austria (2013)

  • Application no. 73874/11 Abubeker v

Austria, 18 June 2013

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Mohammed v Austria (2013)

  • Application 2283/12 Mohammed v

Austria, 6 June 2013

  • Transfer to Hungary
  • MSS threshold not met
slide-16
SLIDE 16

Pending Grand Chamber Case

Application No 29217/12 Tarakhel v Switzerland Rule 39 granted Grand Chamber Hearing: 12 February 2014 General situation in Italy + specific ‘vulnerabilities’ – Afghan couple + 5 children

slide-17
SLIDE 17

C-394/12 Abdullahi

  • Opinion of AG CRUZ VILLALÓN
  • 11 July 2013
slide-18
SLIDE 18
  • 1. Article 19(2) - no individual right to have

their applications examined by a particular Member State responsible in accordance with the Regulation. The scope of the appeals - Charter rights

  • 2. Effects of first entry into the territory of

the Union persist for three months

  • 3. Member State with systemic

deficiencies - exempted from the responsibility under the DR

slide-19
SLIDE 19

CJEU: 11 December 2013

  • Article 10(1) Member State of the first

entry is responsible - only way in which the applicant for asylum can call into question that criterion is by pleading systemic deficiencies = substantial grounds for believing that the applicant for asylum would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 EUCFR.

slide-20
SLIDE 20
  • Critique, Maria Hennessy:
  • http://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en/jou

rnal/dublin-system-and-right-effective- remedy%E2%80%93-case-c-39412- abdullahi

slide-21
SLIDE 21

ASYLUM PROCEDURES

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Asylum Procedures

Strasbourg

  • Articles 3 + 13

Application No. 9152/09 IM v France 2 February 2012 Application No 33210/11 Singh and Others v Belgium 2 October 2012 Luxembourg

  • Case C-69/10 Diouf, 5

February 2010

  • Case C-277/11 MM v

Ireland, 22 November 2012

  • Case C-175/11 HID, BA v

Ireland