The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in the 'Ministerio Fiscal' judgment of Thursday 25 June (Case C-36/20 PPU), that an application for asylum could also be received by an examining magistrate who had been tasked with deciding on the detention of a third country national in an irregular situation. It further held that a person who has expressed a wish to apply for international protection cannot be detained on the grounds that there are not enough places in a reception centre.
The judgment clarifies the reading of several European directives, including the ‘Reception of Asylum Seekers’ Directive (2013/33/EU, hereafter 'Reception Conditions’ Directive) and the ‘Common Procedures for Granting and Withdrawing International Protection’ Directive (2013/32/EU, hereinafter the 'Procedures' Directive) and establishes that the examining magistrate falls within the concept of 'other authorities' contained in the 'procedure' and may, as such, receive applications for international protection, even without being competent under national law, explains the Court.
On the substance of the judgment, the Court notes that on 12 December 2019, a boat carrying 45 third country nationals, including the Malian national to whom the judgment relates, was intercepted near the island of Gran Canaria (Spain), where those persons were taken.
The following day, an administrative authority ordered the removal of those nationals and made a request for their placement in a detention centre. However, the Malian national had informed a magistrate of his intention to apply for international protection.
Given the lack of places in the humanitarian reception centre, however, the same magistrate ordered his placement in a detention centre for foreigners, where his application for international protection was to be processed.
The Malian then appealed against this decision to detain him, which was incompatible with the ‘Procedures’ Directive.
A reference for a preliminary ruling was then made to the Court asking whether the magistrate in question was competent to receive applications for international protection and whether the detention was lawful.
Firstly, the Court clarified that the literal interpretation of the notion of "other authorities which may receive [applications for international protection]" within the meaning of the ‘Procedures’ Directive covers a wide definition of authorities which, without being competent to register such applications, may nevertheless receive them. This expression may therefore cover both administrative and judicial authorities.
An examining magistrate hearing a case for the purpose of deciding on the detention of a third country national in an irregular situation, with a view to his or her return may therefore receive applications for international protection and must transmit them to the competent authorities.
The Court points out that the concept of 'applicant for international protection' in the ‘Reception Condition’s and ‘Procedures’ Directives should be broadly defined: a third country national therefore acquires that status as soon as he or she submits an application.
And the ‘Reception Conditions’ Directive, which lists the grounds for detention, does not provide for the impossibility of finding accommodation in a reception centre. The detention of this man was therefore contrary to the ‘Reception Conditions’ Directive, according to the Court.
Link to the judgment: https://bit.ly/3gaEWT9 (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)