Suchergebnisse

With the ruling X and X of 13 November 2018 (joint cases C-47/17 and C-48/17), the Court of Justice of the European Union established that in case of a failure to reply to a re-examination request within the prescribed period of two weeks in Dublin take back or take charge procedures, the requesting Member State becomes responsible for the examination of the asylum application. The Court of Justice contributes to the interpretation of the Dublin system implementation, stressing that the rules and procedures underlying the allocation of responsibility for the asylum claim should be in compliance with the objective of facilitating a swift examination of applications.

With the judgment of 13 September 2018 (C-368/17), the Court of Justice of the European Union established that the national authority ruling on the application for subsidiary protection must assess the seriousness of the crime that could result in a person being excluded from the benefit of subsidiary protection. This assessment shall consist of a full investigation into the circumstances of the individual case in question and cannot be taken automatically. By applying by analogy its own case-law on exclusion from refugee status to this subsidiary protection case, the Court has contributed to further aligning refugee and subsidiary protection in the direction of a single international protection status.

With the judgment of 13 September 2018 (C-368/17), the Court of Justice of the European Union established that the national authority ruling on the application for subsidiary protection must assess the seriousness of the crime that could result in a person being excluded from the benefit of subsidiary protection. This assessment shall consist of a full investigation into the circumstances of the individual case in question and cannot be taken automatically. By applying by analogy its own case-law on exclusion from refugee status to this subsidiary protection case, the Court has contributed to further aligning refugee and subsidiary protection in the direction of a single international protection status.

With the ruling X and X of 13 November 2018 (joint cases C-47/17 and C-48/17), the Court of Justice of the European Union established that in case of a failure to reply to a re-examination request within the prescribed period of two weeks in Dublin take back or take charge procedures, the requesting Member State becomes responsible for the examination of the asylum application. The Court of Justice contributes to the interpretation of the Dublin system implementation, stressing that the rules and procedures underlying the allocation of responsibility for the asylum claim should be in compliance with the objective of facilitating a swift examination of applications.

This article discusses whether and how the best interests of the child, enshrined in Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, became an instrument for increased protection of the rights of migrant children and their families in the European Union. First, an overview is presented of the temporal and substantive expansion of the case law of the European Court of Justice reflecting on the use of references to Article 24(2) of the Charter. Then, a range of issues is analysed concerning the interpretation of the legal instruments of the Common European Asylum System, the Family Reunification Directive, and the Return Directive. The ECJ decisions are grouped by sub-topics and presented in chronological order. This analysis allows for a reflection of the evolution of the Court's interpretation of the best interests of the child in this field of Union law. It is observed that the primary consideration of the best interests of the child is gradually becoming, if not a general principle, at least a safeguard principle for the genuine enjoyment of the substance of children's rights.
Best Interests of the Child, Migration, Asylum, Family life, Safeguard Principle, Genuine Enjoyment of the Substance of the Rights