Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T00:30:16.053Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

N.S. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Geert De Baere
Geert De Baere*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law and Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, KU Leuven
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

European Court of Justicefundamental rightsprohibition of inhuman or degrading treatmentCommon European Asylum Systemconcept of “safe countries”transfer of asylum seekers to the responsible member state
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 106 , Issue 3 , July 2012 , pp. 616 - 624
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Joined Cases C-411/10&C-493/10, N.S. v. Sec’y of State for the Home Dep’t (Eur. Ct. Justice Dec. 21, 2011). Decisions of the Court and opinions of the advocates general are available online at http://curia.europa.eu.

2 Under the Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union Art. 19(1), 2010 O.J. (C83) 13 [hereinafter TEU], the institution of the EU Court of Justice encompasses the Court of Justice, the General Court, and specialized courts (at present, the EU Civil Service Tribunal). For clarity, this report refers to the Court of Justice as the European Court of Justice (Ecj) in the sense of the highest court of this institution. EU treaties and related documents are available at http://www.eur-lex.europa.eu.

3 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2010 O.J. (C 83) 389 [hereinafter Charter].

4 On the ongoing CEAS Project, see European Commission, Asylum—Building a Common Area of Protection and Solidarity (June 30, 2011), at http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/asylum/asylum_intro_en.htm.

5 See United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR], Asylum Processes (Fair and Efficient Asylum Procedures), paras. 12-18, UN Doc. EC/GC/01/12 (May 31, 2001), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3b36f2fca.html (on safe-third-country concept); Guy S. Goodwin-Gill & Jane McAdam, The Refugee in International Law 403-07 (2007) (on safe-third-country concepts non-EU systems).

6 Council Regulation 343/2003, 2003 O.J. (L 50) 1 (EC).

7 The EU database for the comparison of fingerprints of asylum applicants and illegal immigrants, established pursuant to Council Regulation 2725/2000, 2000 O.J. (L 316) 1 (EC). See also Council Regulation 407/2002, 2002 O.J. (L 62) 1 (EC) (on implementing the Eurodac regulation).

8 Under TEU Article 6(1), the “Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union . . ., which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties.” Under Article 51 (1) of the Charter, its provisions are addressed to the member states “only when they are implementing Union law.” The latter phrase must be interpreted as meaning “that the provisions of the Charter apply to the Member States where they act within the scope of EU law.” Opinion of Advocate General [Ag] Bot, paras. 116-20 (Apr. 5, 2011), Case C-108/10, Scattolon v. Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (Eur. Ct. Justice Sept. 6, 2011) ; accord Case C-27/1l, Vinkov v. Nachalnik Administrativno-nakazatelna deynost, para. 58 (Eur. Ct. Justice June 7, 2012); Case C-279/09, Deb Deutsche Energiehandels- und Beratungsgesellschaft mbH v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, para. 30 (Eur. Ct. Justice Dec. 22, 2010); see also Opinion of Ag Sharpston, para. 69 (May 22, 2008), Case C-427/06, Bartsch v. Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte (BSH) Altersfürsorge GmbH, 2008 ECR1-7245 (noting that member state measures can be reviewed on the basis of their compliance with general principles of EU law only if they fall within the scope of EU law and providing guidance on when that is the case).

9 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Art. 33(1), July 28, 1951, 189 UNTS 150 [hereinafter Refugee Convention]. Charter Article 18 and the Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Art. 78, 2010 O.J. (C 83) 47 [hereinafter TFEU], provide that the rules of the Convention and 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, Jan. 31, 1967, 19 UST 6223, 606 UNTS 267, are to be respected. See Case C-31/09, Bolbol v. Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal, 2010 ECR 1-5537, para. 38.

10 Moreover, as pointed out in the present case in the Opinion of Ag Trstenjak, para. 134 (Sept. 22, 2011), Joined Cases C-411/10 & C-493/10 [hereinafter AG Opinion], that presumption must be interpreted by taking into account the principle of effectiveness, that it must not be made excessively difficult or impossible in practice to exercise the rights conferred by EU law.

11 Protocol No. 30 to the TEU, 2010 O.J. (C 83) 313.

12 Opinion of AG Sharpston, para. 1 (Mar. 4, 2010), Case C-31/09, supra note 9.

13 AG Opinion, supra note 10, para. 1.

14 M.S.S. v. Belgium, App. No. 30696/09, para. 216 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jan. 21, 2011). Decisions of the Court are available online at http://www.echr.coe.int.

15 Nov. 4, 1950, ETS No. 5, 213 UNTS 222.

16 M.S.S., para. 216.

17 That principle is an aspect of sincere cooperation, now laid down in Teu Article 4(3).

18 Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention, supra note 9, prohibits states from expelling or returning a refugee “where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” This is reflected in Art. 19(2) of the Charter, supra note 3.

14 M.S.S., para. 321.

20 M.S.S., paras. 359-60, 396.

21 T.I. v. United Kingdom, 2000-III Eur. Ct. H.R. 435.

22 Convention Determining the State Responsible for Examining Applications for Asylum Lodged in One of the Member States of the European Communities, 1997 O.J. (C 254) 1.

23 K.R.S. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 32733/08 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Dec. 2, 2008).

24 Case C-72/06, Comm’n v. Greece, 2007 Ecr1-57.

25 Council Directive 2003/9/EC, 2003 O.J. (L31) 18; see Clayton, Gina, Asylum Seekers in Europe: M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece, 11 Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 758, 761 (2011)Google Scholar.

26 Commission Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing the Criteria and Mechanisms for Determining the Member State Responsible for Examining an Application for International Protection Lodged in One of the Member States by a Third-Country National ora Stateless Person, Art. 31, COM (2008) 820 final/2 (Jan. 19, 2008).

27 Report on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing the Criteria and Mechanisms for Determining the Member State Responsible for Examining an Application for International Protection Lodged in One of the Member States by a Third-Country National or a Stateless Person (recast), Eurl. Parl. Doc. A6-0284/2009, at 24 (Apr. 29, 2009).

28 Article 3(2) of the Dublin II Regulation, supra note 6, permits such suspensions under certain circumstances. The states that suspended transfers included Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, and EU nonmenber participants in the Dublin system Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland. See Updated Unhcr Information Note on National Practice in the Application of Article 3(2) of the Dublin II Regulation in Particular in the Context of Intended Transfers to Greece, para. 2 & nn.5, 6 (Jan. 31, 2011), at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4d7610d92.pdf.

29 Case C-396/11, Criminal Proceedings Against Radu (Eur. Ct. Justice, referral filed July 27, 2011); Case C-399/11, Criminal Proceedings Against Melloni (Eur. Ct. Justice, referral filed July 28, 2011).

30 See Council Framework Decision 2002/584/Jha on the European Arrest Warrant, 2002 O.J. (L 190) 1.

31 Soering v. United Kingdom, 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1989); see Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy, App. No. 27765/09, para. 114 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Feb. 23, 2012) (citing Soering, supra, paras. 90-91); see also Al Husin v. Bosnia, App. No. 3727/08, paras. 49-50 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Feb. 7, 2012).

32 Corfu Channel, 1949 ICJ Rep. 4 (Apr. 9).

33 Id. at 22-23.

34 See similarly on M. S. S. v. Belgium, App. No. 30696/09 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jan. 21, 2011), Goodwin-Gill, Guy S., The Right to Seek Asylum: Interception at Sea and the Principle of Non-refoulement, 23 Int’l J. Refugee L. 443, 453-54 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 M.S.S., paras. 345-50. But see id., Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Bratza, para. 1 (contesting the majority’s conclusion that the situation in Greece and the risks to asylum seekers there at the time justified finding that Belgium had violated Article 3, especially in light of K.R.S., supra note 23).

36 E.g., Case C-4/11, Fed. Rep. Germany v. Puid (Eur. Ct. Justice, referral filed Jan. 5, 2011); Case C-245/11, K. v. Bundesasylamt (Eur. Ct. Justice, referral filed May 23, 2011); see Moreno-Lax, Violeta, Dismantling the Dublin System: M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, 14 Eur. J. Migration & L. 1, 18 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar (noting differences among member states on standards regarding safety of returns).

37 Prime Minister Blair, Tony: “It is absolutely clear that we have an opt-out from both the charter and judicial and home affairs.” 462 Parl. Deb., H.C., Hansard, June 25, 2007 Google Scholar, col. 37, at http://www.parliament.uk.

38 Barnard, Catherine, The ‘Opt-Out’ for the UK and Poland from the Charter of Fundamental Rights: Triumph of Rhetoric over Reality?, in The Lisbon Treaty: EU Constitutionalism Without A Constitutional Treaty? 257 (Griller, Stefan & Ziller, Jacques eds., 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ns, R (on the Application of) v. Sec’y of State for the Home Dep’t, [2010] EWCA (Civ) 990, [7] (quoting respondent’s notice that “the Secretary of State accepts, in principle, that fundamental rights set out in the Charter can be relied on as against the United Kingdom .... The purpose of the Charter Protocol is not to prevent the Charter from applying to the United Kingdom, but to explain its effect.” (Lord Neuberger, M.R.)).

39 De Baere, Geert, European Integration and the Rule of Law in Foreign Policy, in Philosophical Foundations of European Union Law (Dickson, Julie & Eleftheriadis, Pavlos eds., forthcoming 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Joined Cases C-402/05 P & C-415/05 P, Kadi v. Council, 2008 ECR1-6351 (reported by Zgonec-Rožej, Miša at 103 AJIL 305 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar), and Case T-85/09, Kadi v. Comm’n (Gen. Ct. Sept. 30, 2010), appeal docketed, Joined Cases C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P, & C-595/10 P (Eur. Ct. Justice Dec. 13, 2010), can arguably be understood in that light.

41 See UNHCR, supra note 5, paras. 13-16; Goodwin-Gill & McAdam, supra note 5, at 392; Hofmann, Rainer & Löhr, Tillmann, Introduction to Chapter V: Requirements for Refugee Determination Procedures, in The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol: A Commentary 1081, 1113 (Zimmermann, Andreas ed., 2011)Google Scholar.