Brussels, 17/03/2016 (Agence Europe) - On Thursday 17 March, the European Court of Justice confirmed that a request for international protection can be seen as ineligible if an immigrant arrives illegally in a member state the country can then decide to send the asylum-seeker back to a 'safe' country even if the member state was not initially responsible for processing the asylum application.
In case C-695/15, which will attract the attention of the European Summit which meets today (see related article), European judges are expected to lay down the conditions in which a member state may consider sending an asylum-seeker, such as a war refugee, to a 'safe' third country. This option is provided under the EU directive on common procedures for the granting of international protection (2013/32/EU).
The judges were sent an emergency case by a Hungarian court that has to decide on a Pakistani man who is being detained and whose request for asylum lodged in Hungary has been ruled ineligible. The man had entered Hungary illegally from Serbia, lodged an initial request for asylum in Hungary and then immediately travelling on towards Austria, being arrested en route in the Czech Republic and sent to Hungary. Considering that he had implicitly withdrawn his asylum request because he'd left the country, the Hungarian authorities rejected his second request without examining the case and decided to send him to Serbia, a third country that is considered 'safe.'
In its ruling, the Court agreed with Hungary, making similar arguments to those put forward by the advocate general (see EUROPE 11511). The right to send an asylum-seeker to a 'safe' third country may therefore be exercised by the authorities of a member state which considers itself responsible for the application under the Dublin Regulation, before the details of the case are considered. Deciding which member state is responsible for processing the request is not a precondition for sending the individual to a safe third country, explains the Court, following the argument made by the German government during the hearings.
Next, the Court said that Hungary was not required to inform the Czech Republic of its plans to send the individual to Serbia. The only obligation that Hungary has to respect is that of informing the European Commission of the third countries for which it applies the concept of a 'safe' country.
Finally, should Hungary resume examination of the man's first request for asylum? On this point, the Court says that the Hungarian authorities are free to choose. They can decide to not resume the procedure where it was left off. They can therefore decide to send the individual to a 'safe' third country by ruling that the second request is ineligible.
Such a decision may, however, be challenged in court, if the asylum seeker highlights his individual situation and the risks to himself in the third country in question. A Court official explained to this newsletter that making an appeal of this nature would suspend the deportation decisions, even if the details of the request for international protection have not been processed in the 'diet regime' of sending an applicant to a 'safe European country.' (Original version in French by Jan Kordys)
= = = = = = = = = = = = =