Beyond EU Borders, Beyond EU Responsibility: The Protection of Asylum-Seekers’ Rights In and Outside the EU. Reflections on the X. & X. and Al Chodor Cases
| Autor: | Sara De Vido |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2021 |
| Předmět: |
geography
geography.geographical_feature_category Human rights Jurisprudence media_common.quotation_subject Refugee Fell migration Advocate General migration VISA detention outsourcing migrants' rights VISA detention Argument outsourcing Political science Law Member state media_common.cataloged_instance migrants' rights Settore IUS/14 - Diritto dell'Unione Europea European union media_common |
| Zdroj: | The New Eastern Mediterranean Transformed ISBN: 9783030705534 |
| Popis: | The purpose of this article is to reflect on two judgments rendered by the European Court of Justice, namely X. and X. v. Belgium, and Al Chodor, both decided in March 2017, which show a difference in the position of the Court concerning the application of human rights to migrants outside and inside the borders of the EU. The first case concerned Syrian migrants who had applied for humanitarian visas at the Belgian embassy in Lebanon. The Court argued that, since the applications for visas on humanitarian grounds were made with a view to applying for asylum in Belgium and thereafter to being granted a residence permit with a period of validity exceeding 90 days, the applications fell entirely within the scope of national law, and that the provisions of the Charter of fundamental rights of the EU did not apply to it. The Court departed from the opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi, who invoked the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the non-refoulement principle to support his argument that the values of the European Union should be protected both within the territory of the EU member states as well as in their relations with third states. Al Chodor refers to the conditions of detention of asylum seekers within the EU pending a transfer to another Member State. The Court was asked whether Article 2 (n) and Article 28 (2) of the Dublin III Regulation had to be interpreted as requiring Member States to establish, in a national law, objective criteria underlying the reasons for believing that an applicant for international protection who is subject to a transfer procedure may abscond. In this case, the Court ruled that the objective criteria to define a ‘risk of absconding’ had to be established in a binding provision of general application. In the absence of that, Article 28(2) is inapplicable and detention on this ground must be declared unlawful. The Court affirmed the primacy of human rights law in EU asylum law implementation. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|