Suchergebnisse

In recent years, more and more asylum seekers trying to reach the European Union (EU) have found themselves subjected to practices that contradict the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the democratic principles within the Dublin III Regulation. The inalienable right of those individuals to seek asylum is violated every time that the Member States' national authorities subject them to irregular procedures and deny them their right to international protection without an individual assessment of their asylum claims. These practices are defined as push-backs. This brief outlines the ways in which asylum seekers are exposed to both 'external' and 'internal' push-backs by and between the Member States, while also underscoring the importance of safeguarding the physical safety and integrity of people seeking asylum. It offers case studies of EU countries where push-backs have become the new normal, and highlights the role of courts in remedying the wide-spreading push-backs practices. Within this context of generalized push-backs and executive backlash against European and domestic judgments finding violations of human rights, the withdrawal of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency from Hungary is an alarming signal for human rights protection. In the face of the rule of law and human rights challenges, was the Agency's withdrawal the most appropriate measure?. Finally, it asks whether the recent EU border procedure proposed in 2020 will have a positive or a negative impact on the right to seek asylum on the ground. ; En els darrers anys, cada cop més sol·licitants d'asil que intenten arribar a la Unió Europea (UE) s'han vist sotmesos a pràctiques que contradiuen la Carta dels Drets Fonamentals de la UE i els principis democràtics del Reglament Dublín III. El dret inalienable d'aquestes persones a sol·licitar asil es viola cada vegada que les autoritats nacionals dels Estats membres les sotmeten a procediments irregulars i se'ls nega el dret a la protecció internacional, sense una avaluació individual de les sol·licituds d'asil. Aquestes pràctiques es defineixen com a Devolucions forçoses. Aquest resum descriu les formes en què els sol·licitants d'asil estan exposats a devolucions tant "externes" com "internes" per part dels Estats membres i entre ells, alhora que subratlla la importància de salvaguardar la seguretat física i la integritat de les persones que sol·liciten asil. Ofereix estudis de casos de països de la UE on les devolucions s'han convertit en la nova normalitat i destaca el paper dels tribunals per posar remei a les pràctiques generalitzades de devolucions. Dins d'aquest context de devolucions forçoses i de reaccions violentes de l'executiu contra les sentències europees i nacionals que declaren violacions dels drets humans, la retirada de l'Agència Europea de la Guàrdia Costanera i de Fronteres d'Hongria és un senyal alarmant per a la protecció dels drets humans. Davant els desafiaments a l'Estat de dret i als drets humans, la retirada de l'Agència era la mesura més adequada?. Finalment, es planteja la pregunta de si el recent procediment fronterer de la UE, proposat el 2020, tindrà un impacte positiu o negatiu sobre el dret a sol·licitar asil sobre el terreny. ; En los últimos años, cada vez más solicitantes de asilo que intentan llegar a la Unión Europea (UE) se han visto sometidos a prácticas que contradicen la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la UE y los principios democráticos del Reglamento Dublín III. El derecho inalienable de esas personas a solicitar asilo se viola cada vez que las autoridades nacionales de los Estados miembros las someten a procedimientos irregulares y les niegan su derecho a protección internacional, sin una evaluación individual de sus solicitudes de asilo. Estas prácticas se definen como devoluciones forzosas. Este resumen describe las formas como los solicitantes de asilo están expuestos a devoluciones tanto "externas" como "internas" por parte de los Estados miembros y entre ellos, al mismo tiempo que subraya la importancia de salvaguardar la seguridad física y la integridad de las personas que solicitan asilo. Ofrece estudios de casos de países de la UE donde las devoluciones se han convertido en la nueva normalidad y destaca el papel de los tribunales para remediar las prácticas generalizadas de devoluciones. Dentro de este contexto de rechazos generalizados y reacciones violentas del ejecutivo contra las sentencias europeas y nacionales que declaran violaciones de los derechos humanos, la retirada de la Agencia Europea de la Guardia Costera y de Fronteras de Hungría es una señal alarmante para la protección de los derechos humanos. Ante los desafíos del Estado de derecho y los derechos humanos, ¿era la retirada de la Agencia la medida más adecuada?. Por último, se plantea la pregunta de si el reciente procedimiento fronterizo de la UE, propuesto en 2020, tendrá un impacto positivo o negativo sobre el derecho a solicitar asilo sobre el terreno.

In the context of an increasing number of unrepresented EU citizens travelling and residing outside the EU, and changes to the EU's and Member States' external representations, this article explores the added value of the Consular Protection Directive, for EU citizens in third countries and, more broadly, for EU citizenship policy. The Directive is one of the most controversial instruments in the field of EU citizenship; it was adopted after four years of intense inter-institutional negotiations and more than two decades after the Maastricht Treaty conferred an EU citizenship right to equal protection in third countries.The article explores the main causes for this long and difficult road to the Directive's adoption; it then examines the main innovations introduced by the Directive to the implementation of this EU citizenship right, and whether it can, in fact, deliver a better protection for EU citizens outside the EU. It concludes by identifying remaining challenges in implementing the Directive.

This Handbook addresses the complexity of legal and jurisprudential legal sources governing asylum and immigration, involving highly specialised and technical set of norms originating from multiple legal sources. The analysis focus on the jurisprudence of the CJEU and the ECtHR selecting the cases where they engaged in a constructive and coordinated discussion of their respective fundamental rights charters, and showing where their judicial interpretations have left room for divergent application at the domestic level. The Handbook highlights the role of national courts in avoiding the risk of conflicting interpretations through judicial interactions that forced the supranational courts to adjust their interpretations. Then, the Handbook shows that the compatibility of EU secondary legislation was increasingly challenged in light of international and regional, but also EU primary legislation. This requires raising awareness of legal practitioners that in addition to the correct application of EU law, they also need to consider the fundamental rights.

This chapter analyses the contribution of courts and judicial dialogue to the implementation of the 'risk of absconding', which has proved to be one of the most problematic notions introduced by the Return Directive. The meaning of the 'risk of absconding' has been surrounded by confusion from the very start of the negotiations on the Return Directive. Initially, the European Commission's proposal for a Return Directive did not provide a defi nition of this notion. Instead, a definition was introduced in Article 3(7) following a compromise reached between the opposing views of the Commission, Council and Parliament. The compromise defi nition used a very broad phrasing and did not provide for a harmonised list of circumstances that could lead to fi nding a risk of absconding. According to the Return Directive, Member States are required only to provide for objective criteria in national laws. Th e number and content of 'objective criteria' is not harmonised at EU level; instead Member States have retained the power to set these circumstances. Th is freedom has been wrongly interpreted as being unrestricted by EU legal guarantees, so much so that certain Member States listed so many and broad circumstances that a risk of absconding would almost always be presumed to exist, thus endangering the eff ective fulfi lment of the Directive's objectives.

Defence date: 22 June 2015 ; Examining Board: Professor Marise Cremona, European University Institute (Supervisor); Professor Patrizia Vigni, University of Siena; Professor Craig Barker, London South Bank University; Professor Rainer Bauböck, European University Institute. ; This thesis explores the development of European Union's model of protecting its citizens in the world, demonstrating it to be a unique and complex mixture of EU internal and external policies and instruments that is unlike any other international, regional, or domestic model of protecting individuals abroad. The thesis will critically assess the three main stages of development of the EU model until the present day. The first stage started in 1993, when the Maastricht Treaty introduced an EU citizenship right to equal protection abroad and this continued for the following decade. It will be shown that during this period the EU model of protecting the Union citizens abroad consisted of a purely horizontal form of cooperation among the Member States that materialised in a sui generis type of international agreement that has restricted the efficiency of the EU citizenship right, due to the Member States' reluctance to lose their State prerogatives in favour of the EU. The second stage of development started in 2004 when a number of international disasters affecting EU citizens in third countries led the Member States to accept cooperation with EU institutions and external policy instruments for the purpose of complementing their capacity to secure the effective protection of unrepresented Union citizens abroad. The third stage started with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, which conferred an unprecedented power to an international organisation (the EU) to exercise State-like consular protection functions directly with respect to the Union citizens in the world. The thesis will offer a critical assessment of two decades of application of the least-researched EU citizenship right (to consular and diplomatic protection), its nexus with other EU external relations policies and its implementation by the Member States. It will show the added value of the EU model of protecting citizens abroad for the EU citizens, the Member States and the Union, while also making policy recommendations addressing the shortcomings in its current implementation. The thesis will demonstrate that, in spite of the scholarly critiques of the incompatibility of the Union model with public international law, the international community has widely accepted.

Th is book analyses how courts and judicial dialogue shape return policies in the European Union. The way in which states have traditionally dealt with irregular migration has for many decades been characterised by extensive executive discretion, with a very limited role for the judiciary. This book argues that in the European Union, the adoption of the Return Directive brought a significant change to the physiognomy of immigration law in this respect. In particular, it has brought expulsion procedures under judicial scrutiny and thus within the rule of law. Indeed, seeing that EU law enforcement is decentralised and relies for a large extent on the bottom-up engagement of individuals claiming their rights, the Directive empowered domestic courts to venture into a fi eld that had hitherto been dominated by the executive. With domestic judges able to assume the position of 'natural judges' of the Directive, it was predictable that the deference shown by domestic courts to the executive would wane.

REDIAL - REturn Directive DIALogue ; REDIAL is co-financed by the European University Institute and the European Union. The MPC is co-financed by the European University Institute and the European Union

REDIAL - REturn Directive DIALogue ; REDIAL is co-financed by the European University Institute and the European Union. The MPC is co-financed by the European University Institute and the European Union.

REDIAL - REturn Directive DIALogue ; REDIAL is co-financed by the European University Institute and the European Union. The MPC is co-financed by the European University Institute and the European Union

REDIAL - REturn Directive DIALogue ; REDIAL is co-financed by the European University Institute and the European Union. The MPC is co-financed by the European University Institute and the European Union.