Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T08:07:19.137Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Case C-233/18 Zubair Haqbin v. Federaal Agentschap Voor de Opvang van Asielzoekers (C.J.E.U.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2020

Justine N. Stefanelli
Justine N. Stefanelli*
Affiliation:
Director of Publications and Research at the American Society of International Law. Dr. Stefanelli holds a Ph.D. in Law and an LL.M. in European Union Law from Queen Mary University of London, and received her J.D. from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In its preliminary ruling in Haqbin, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or Court) ruled for the first time on whether the EU Reception Conditions Directive 2013/33 (RCD) prohibits Member States from withdrawing material reception conditions in the event of a breach of the rules of accommodation centers, or in the context of violent behavior within those centers. In holding in the negative, the CJEU affirmed the important role played by fundamental rights in the EU's asylum system.

Type
International Legal Documents
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 59 , Issue 4 , August 2020 , pp. 694 - 707
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 by The American Society of International Law

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

ENDNOTES

1 Case C-233/18 Zubair Haqbin v. Federaal Agentschap voor de opvang van asielzoekers (Nov. 12, 2019), http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=220532&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1471550 [hereinafter Haqbin].

2 Council Directive 2013/33/EU, 2013 O.J. (L 180) 96.

3 European Commission, Common European Asylum System, https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/asylum_en.

4 Law of Jan. 12, 2007, on the reception of asylum seekers and certain other categories of foreign nationals, art. 45 (Wet betreffende de opvang van asielzoekers en van bepaalde andere categorieën van vreemdelingen), Moniteur belge of May 7, 2007, p. 24027.

5 Haqbin, supra note 1, ¶¶ 36-39.

6 Id. ¶ 41.

7 Id. ¶ 42.

8 Id. ¶ 43.

9 Id. ¶ 44.

10 Id. ¶ 45.

11 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2012 O.J. (C 326) 391.

12 Haqbin, supra note 1, ¶ 46.

13 Id. ¶ 47.

14 Id. ¶ 48.

15 Id. ¶ 50.

16 Id. ¶¶ 54–55.

17 See Case C-163/17 Abubacarr Jawo v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Mar. 19, 2019), in which the Court held that individuals seeking asylum cannot be transferred under the Dublin system to a Member State where their basic needs would not be met, should they be granted refugee status in that other Member State (in that case, Italy); Joined Cases C-540/17 and C-541/17 Germany v. Adel Hamed and Amar Omar (Nov. 13, 2019), in which the Court held that an EU member state cannot reject an asylum application based on fact that asylum has been granted in another Member State if refugee status in that other Member State would expose that person to a serious risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in contravention of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (in that case, Bulgaria).

18 The CJEU has, especially in the context of immigration detention, focused its analysis on the effective functioning of EU legislation, rather than the protection of the fundamental rights of migrants. See, e.g., Case C-61/11 PPU Hassen El Dridi (Apr. 28, 2011); Case C-329/11 Alexandre Achughbabian (Dec. 6, 2011); Case C-430/11 Md Sagor (Dec. 6, 2012).