Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T21:35:29.975Z Has data issue: true hasContentIssue true
  • English
  • Français

The Common European Asylum System: Balancing Mutual Trust Against Fundamental Rights Protection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 September 2020

Georgios Anagnostaras

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The Common European Asylum System constitutes one of the principal areas in which the fundamental rights of individuals are essentially placed in competition with the core principle of mutual confidence and the need to preserve the effectiveness of EU law. That competitive relationship becomes particularly evident when applicants for international protection rely on alleged violations of their fundamental rights in order to contest their transfer to the Member State that is normally responsible for examining their asylum request according to the criteria of the Dublin III Regulation. The balancing process that needs to be carried out in this respect and the measure of the monitoring obligation that EU law imposes on the receiving Member State regarding the protection of the fundamental rights of asylum seekers are well exemplified by the preliminary ruling in Jawo. That case provides additional clarification regarding the circumstances in which the protection of fundamental rights may introduce exceptions to the principle of mutual trust. At the same time, it illustrates the inherent tensions that exist between the protection of fundamental rights and the application of the principle of mutual confidence.

Keywords

EU LawCommon European Asylum SystemRegulation EU 604/2013principle of mutual trustapplicants for international protectiondetermination of the responsible Member Stategrounds for no transferCharter of Fundamental Rights of the European Unionabsolute and relative fundamental rightsprohibition of inhuman or degrading treatmentexpected living conditions of beneficiaries of international protectionextreme material povertyobligation of national treatmentright to asylum
Type
Article
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 21 , Issue 6 , September 2020 , pp. 1180 - 1197
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the German Law Journal

Footnotes

*

Georgios Anagnostaras is a Legal Advisor at the Hellenic Radio and Television Council and Teaching Associate at the Hellenic Open University in their School of Social Sciences. He has published extensively on subjects such as EU Law, fundamental rights, and mutual confidence between states.

All views expressed are personal. The author is grateful to the anonymous reviewer of the German Law Journal for his invaluable comments on an earlier draft of this Article.

References

1 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union art. 18, 2010 O.J. (C 83) 389 [hereinafter Charter].

2 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union art. 78, May 9, 2008, 2008 O.J. (C 115) 47 [hereinafter TFEU].

3 TFEU art. 80.

4 Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 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, 2013 OJ (L 180) 31 (hereinafter Dublin III).

5 Dublin III art. 13(1).

6 Dublin III art. 3(2).

7 On the judicial development and application of this principle, see particularly Sacha Prechal, Mutual Trust Before the Court of Justice of the European Union, 2 Eur. Papers 75 (2017). See also Emioni Xanthopoulou, Mutual Trust and Rights in EU Criminal and Asylum Law: Three Faces of Evolution and the Uncharged Territory Beyond Blind Trust, 55 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 489 (2018). On the relationship between the application of the principle of mutual confidence and the protection of fundamental rights, see Eduardo Gill-Pedro & Xavier Groussot, The Duty of Mutual Trust in EU Law and the Duty to Secure Human Rights, 35 Nordic J. Hum. Rts. 258 (2017).

8 See ECJ, Case C-216/18 PPU, Minister for Justice & Equal. v. LM, ECLI:EU:C:2018:586 (July 25, 2018), paras. 35–37, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-216/18.

9 See ECJ, Opinion 2/13, Accession of the European Union to the ECHR, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454 (Dec. 18, 2014), para. 192, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-2/13.

10 ECJ, Case C-163/17, Abubacarr Jawo v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, ECLI:EU:C:2019:218 (Mar. 19, 2019), http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-163/17.

11 ECJ, Joined Cases 297, 318, & 319, 438/17, Bashar Ibrahim & Others v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, ECLI:EU:C:2019:219 (Mar. 19, 2019), http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-297/17.

12 Dublin III art. 29.

13 Jawo, Case C-163/17 at paras. 53–56.

14 Id. at paras. 57–63.

15 Id. at paras. 64–65.

16 ECJ, Joined Cases 411 & 493/10, N. S. v. Sec’y of State for the Home Dep’t, ECLI:EU:C:2011:865 (Dec. 21, 2011), http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=117187&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=8289193. That ruling gave rise to an abundance of academic literature. See Grainne Mellon, The Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Dublin Convention: An Analysis of N.S. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, 18 Eur. Pub. L. 655 (2012); Joanna Buckley, N.S. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, 2012 Eur. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 208 (2012); Sophie Lieven, Case Report on C-411/10, N.S. and C-493/10, M.E. and Others, 14 Eur. J. Migration & L. 223 (2012); Cathryn Costello, Dublin-Case NS/ME: Finally an End to Blind Trust Across the EU?, 2 Asiel & Migrantenrecht 83 (2012).

17 The ruling relied in this respect on the relevant case law of M.S.S. v. Belg. & Greece, App. No. 30696/09, (Jan. 21, 2011), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-103050.

18 The imposition of that monitoring obligation has been described as a form of horizontal Solange. See Iris Canor, My Brother’s Keeper? Horizontal Solange: “An Ever Closer Distrust Among the Peoples of Europe,” 50 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 383 (2013).

19 Dublin III art. 3(2).

20 Dublin III recs. 32, 39.

21 Directive 2013/33/EU, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 Laying Down Standards for the Reception of Applicants for International Protection, 2013 O.J. (L 180) 96, recs. 10, 35 [hereinafter Reception Conditions Directive]; Directive 2011/95/EU, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on Standards for the Qualification of Third-Country Nationals or Stateless Persons as Beneficiaries of International Protection, for a Uniform Status for Refugees or for Persons Eligible for Subsidiary Protection, and for the Content of the Protection Granted, 2011 O.J. (L 337) 9, recs. 16, 17 [hereinafter Qualification Directive]; Directive 2013/32/EU, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on Common Procedures for Granting and Withdrawing International Protection, 2013 O.J. (L 180) 60, recs. 15, 60 [hereinafter Asylum Procedures Directive].

22 ECJ, Case C-578/16 PPU, C. K. & Others v. Republika Slovenija, ECLI:EU:C:2017:127 (Feb. 16, 2017), http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-578/16. For more on this preliminary ruling see Šeila Imamovic & Elise Muir, The Dublin III System: More Derogations to the Duty to Transfer Individual Asylum Seekers?, 2 Eur. Papers 719 (2017).

23 This interpretation brings the preliminary ruling closer to the relevant case law of the ECtHR in Tarakhel v. Switzerland, App. No. 29217/12, (Nov. 4, 2014), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-148070.

24 See, e.g., Paposhvili v. Belgium, App. No. 41738/10, (Dec. 13, 2016), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-169662.

25 See by analogy the preliminary ruling in ECJ, Case C-52/13, Centre public d’action sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-La-Neuve v. Moussa Abdida, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2453 (Mar. 13, 2014), paras. 46–48, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-52/13.

26 See Jawo, Case C-163/17, at para. 95.

27 Dublin III art. 9.

28 Also see the submissions in Jawo of the Italian and the United Kingdom Governments.

29 Also see the submissions in Jawo of the German, United Kingdom, and Netherlands Governments.

30 Qualification Directive arts. 26–30.

31 See the submissions in Jawo of the Commission and the German Government.

32 Jawo, Case C-163/17 at para. 79.

33 Id. at paras. 76–79.

34 Id. at paras. 86–90.

35 Charter art. 51(1).

36 See, e.g., ECJ, Case C-617/10, Åklagaren v. Hans Åkerberg Fransson, ECLI:EU:C:2013:105 (May 7, 2013), http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=123724&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=8299698. For more on that preliminary ruling, see Filippo Fontanelli, Hic Sunt Nationes: The Elusive Limits of the EU Charter and the German Constitutional Watchdog, 9 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 315 (2013); Emily Hancox, The Meaning of “Implementing” EU Law Under Article 51(1) of the Charter: Åkerberg Fransson, 50 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1411 (2013); Bas Van Bockel & Peter Wattel, New Wine into Old Wineskins: The Scope of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU after Åkerberg Fransson, 38 Eur. L. Rev. 866 (2013).

37 See particularly in this respect the judgment of the German Constitutional Court in Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court] Case No. 1 BvR 1215/07, (Apr. 24, 2013), http://www.bverfg.de/e/rs20130424_1bvr121507en.html. For more on this case see the Editorial Comments, Ultra Vires: Has the Bundesverfassungsgericht Shown its Teeth?, 50 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 925 (2013).

38 Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, 2009 O.J. (L 81) 24.

39 Reception Conditions Directive and Qualification Directive, respectively.

40 Jawo, Case C-163/17 at paras. 88–90.

41 See in this respect the Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet in Jawo, Case C-163/17 at paras. 107–08.

42 Charter art. 4.

43 C. K. & Others, Case C-578/16 PPU at para. 59; Jawo, Case C-163/170 at paras. 78, 87; Bashar Ibrahim, Joined Cases 297, 318, 319, & 438/17 at para. 87.

44 Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of Feb. 26, 2009, 2009 O.J. (L 81) 24.

45 That case law was later on extended to extradition procedures. See ECJ, Case C-182/15, Aleksei Petruhhin v. Latvijas Republikas Ģenerālprokuratūra, ECLI:EU:C:2016:630 (Sept. 6, 2016), paras. 51–60, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-182/15.

46 ECJ, Joined Cases 404 & 609/15 PPU, Pál Aranyosi & Robert Căldăraru, ECLI:EU:C:2016:198 (Apr. 5, 2016), http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-404/15. For more on this case, see Georgios Anagnostaras, Mutual Confidence is not Blind Trust! Fundamental Rights Protection and the Execution of the European Arrest Warrant, 53 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1675 (2017). See Mathias Hong, Human Dignity, Identity Review of the European Arrest Warrant and the Court of Justice as a Listener in the Dialogue of Courts: Solange-III and Aranyosi, 12 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 549 (2016).

47 Reference is made to Articles 1 (human dignity), 4 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), 7 (respect for private and family life), 18 (right to asylum), 24 (rights of the child), and 47 (right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial).

48 Jawo, Case C-163/170 at para. 78.

49 Minister for Justice & Equal., Case C-216/18 PPU. For more on this case see Mattias Wendel, Mutual Trust, Essence and Federalism – Between Consolidating and Fragmenting the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice After LM, 15 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 17 (2019). See also Michal Krajewski, Who is Afraid of the European Council? The Court of Justice’s Cautious Approach to the Independence of Domestic Judges: ECJ 25 July 2018, Case C-216/18 PPU, The Minister for Justice and Equality v LM, 14 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 792 (2018).

50 As protected by Charter art. 47(2).

51 Charter art. 52(1).

52 Minister for Justice & Equal., Case C-216/18 PPU at para. 48.

53 Id. at paras. 49–55.

54 Id. at para. 59.

55 See P. Takis Tridimas & Giulia Gentile, The Essence of Rights: An Unreliable Boundary?, 20 German L.J. 794 (2019).

56 See Maja Brkan, The Essence of Fundamental Rights to Privacy and Data Protection: Finding the Way Through the Maze of the CJEU’s Constitutional Reasoning, 20 German L.J. 864, 882–83 (2019); Mark Dawson, Orla Lynskey & Elsa Muir, What is the Added Value of the Concept of the “Essence” of EU Fundamental Rights?, 20 German L.J. 763, 768–69 (2019); Koen Lenaerts, Limits on Limitations: The Essence of Fundamental Rights, 20 German L.J. 779, 784–85 (2019).

57 Maja Brkan, The Concept of Essence of Fundamental Rights in the EU Legal Order: Peeling the Onion to its Core, 14 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 332, 364, 368 (2018).

58 N. S. & M.E., Joined Cases 411 & 493/10.

59 Id. at paras. 82–85.

60 Opinion of Advocate General Tanchev, Minister for Justice & Equal., Case C-216/18 PPU at paras. 69–77.

61 Bashar Ibrahim, Joined Cases 297, 318, 319, & 438/17.

62 Qualification Directive arts. 15–19.

63 Asylum Procedures Directive art. 33(2)(a).

64 Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet, Bashar Ibrahim, Joined Cases 297, 318, 319, & 438/17 at paras 108–20.

65 Bashar Ibrahim, Joined Cases C-297, 318, 319, & 438/17 at paras. 95–100.

66 That argument seems to be implicit in the submissions of the French and the Polish Governments in the proceedings.

67 N. S. & M.E., Joined Cases 411 & 493/10.

68 Jawo, Case C-163/170 at paras. 91–93.

69 European Convention on Human Rights art. 3 (1950).

70 M.S.S., App. No. 30696/09. For more on this case, see Paul Gragl, The Shortcomings of Dublin II: Strasbourg’s M.S.S. Judgment and its Implications for the European Union’s Legal Order, 2012 Eur. Y.B. on Hum. Rts. 123.

71 See Bouyid v. Belgium, App. No. 23380/09, para. 86 (Sept. 28, 2015), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-157670.

72 M.S.S., App. No. 30696/09 at paras. 252–64.

73 Tarakhel, App. No. 29217/12.

74 Jawo, Case C-163/170 at para. 95.

75 Accession of the European Union to the ECHR, Opinion 2/13 at para. 192. For more on this case, see Bruno De Witte & Šejla Imamović, Opinion 2/13 on Accession to the ECHR: Defending the EU Legal Order Against a Foreign Human Rights Court, 40 Eur. L. Rev. 683 (2015); Piet Eeckhout, Opinion 2/13 on EU Accession to the ECHR and Judicial Dialogue: Autonomy or Autarky, 38 Fordham Int’L L.J. 955 (2015); Benedikt H. Pirker & Stefan Reitemeyer, Between Discursive and Exclusive Autonomy – Opinion 2/13, the Protection of Fundamental Rights and the Autonomy of EU Law, 17 Y.B. for Eur. Leg. Stud. 168 (2015). See also Editorial Comments, 52 Common Mkt. Leg. Rev. 1 (2015); Special Section, 16 German L.J. 105–222 (2015).

76 See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court] Case No. 2 BvR 2735/14, (Jan. 26, 2016), http://www.bverfg.de/e/rs20151215_2bvr273514en.html. For more on this case, see Georgios Anagnostaras, Solange III? Fundamental Rights Protection Under National Identity Review, 42 Eur. L. Rev. 234 (2017); Tobias Reinbacher & Mattias Wendel, The Bundesverfassungsgericht’s European Arrest Warrant II Decision, 23 Maastricht J. Eur. & Comp. L. 702 (2016); Hong, supra note 46.

77 According to the provisions of Procedures Directive.

78 Qualification Directive arts. 26–30.

79 That has been emphatically stressed on several occasions in the case law of the ECtHR. See M.S.S., App. No. 30696/09 at para. 251.

80 Qualification Directive art. 34.

81 Jawo, Case C-163/170 at para. 94.

82 Bashar Ibrahim, Joined Cases 297, 318, 319, & 438/17 at para. 93.

83 Jawo, Case C-163/170 at para. 95.

84 See also Bashar Ibrahim, Joined Cases 297, 318, 319, & 438/17 at para. 93.

85 Jawo, Case C-163/170 at para. 96.

86 N. S. & M.E., Joined Cases 411 & 493/10 at paras. 84–85.

87 See also Bashar Ibrahim, Joined Cases 297, 318, 319, & 438/17, at para. 92.

88 See, e.g., ECJ, Case C-283/11, Sky Österreich GmbH v. Österreichischer Rundfunk, ECLI:EU:C:2013:28 (Jan. 22, 2013), http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-283/11. One possible interpretation of the ruling is that the court balanced the freedom to conduct a business not only against the right to receive information and the pluralism of the media, but also against the emergence of a single information area and the completion of the internal market in the audiovisual media services sector. See Georgios Anagnostaras, Balancing Conflicting Fundamental Rights: The Sky Österreich Paradigm, 39 Eur. L. Rev. 111, 122 (2014).

89 See ECJ, Case C-399/11, Stefano Melloni v. Ministerio Fiscal, ECLI:EU:C:2013:107 (Feb. 26, 2013), paras. 62–63, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-399/11.

90 See Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Towards A Reform of the Common European Asylum System and Enhancing Legal Avenues to Europe, COM (2016) 197 final (Apr. 6, 2016).