Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T08:14:54.158Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MP v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (CJEU)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 November 2018

Anne Aagten
Anne Aagten*
Affiliation:
Anne Aagten is a lecturer and researcher specializing in international and European refugee law and asylum law at the Faculty of Law, Leiden University in Leiden, the Netherlands.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On April 24, 2018, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment in MP v. Secretary of State for the Home Department. The judgment considers the interpretation and application of the concept of subsidiary protection. In the EU, two forms of international protection exist: refugee status and subsidiary protection status. The latter may apply to those who are refused refugee status. For subsidiary protection to be granted, it is assessed whether there is a real risk that the individual in question will, upon return, be subjected to serious harm in the form of the death penalty, torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment, or to indiscriminate violence as a result of an armed conflict.

Type
International Legal Documents
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 57 , Issue 5 , October 2018 , pp. 948 - 959
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 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 MP v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Case No. C-353/16 (Apr. 24, 2018), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62016CJ0353&from=EN [hereinafter Judgment].

2 Council Directive 2004/83 of 29 April 2004 on Minimum Standards for the Qualification and Status of Third Country Nationals or Stateless Persons as Refugees or as Persons Who Otherwise Need International Protection and the Content of the Protection Granted (recast Council Directive 2011/95).

3 See N v. the United Kingdom, App. No. 26565/05, ¶¶ 42–45, 51 (May 27, 2008), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-86490.

4 M'Bodj v. État Belge, Case No. C-542/13 (Dec. 18, 2014), http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=160947&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=573897 [hereinafter M'Bodj].

5 Id. ¶ 35.

6 Id. ¶ 36.

7 Paposhvili v. Belgium, App. No. 41738 (Dec. 13, 2016), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-169662 [hereinafter Paposhvili].

8 Id. ¶ 183.

9 Judgment, supra note 1, ¶ 33.

10 Id. ¶¶ 36–37.

11 Id. ¶ 43.

12 Id. ¶ 46.

13 Id. ¶ 48.

14 Id. ¶ 49.

15 Id. ¶ 51; M'Bodj, supra note 4, ¶¶ 35–36.

16 Judgment, supra note 1, ¶¶ 52–53.

17 Id. ¶ 57.

18 Id.

19 See Steve Peers, Victims of Torture and EU Law, EU Law Analysis (Apr. 24, 2018), http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2018/04/torture-victims-and-eu-law.html.

20 Paposhvili, supra note 7, ¶¶ 178–83.

21 See Anne Aagten, The MP Judgment: The CJEU on Subsidiary Protection for Former Victims of Torture, Leiden Law Blog (May 15, 2018), https://leidenlawblog.nl/articles/the-mp-judgment.