Administration of justice / Decision on admissibility

The ECtHR considered it more appropriate to examine the complaints concerning the failure of France to comply with the interim relief orders of the Administrative Court ordering that the applicants must be taken into emergency accommodation and the absence of an effective emergency procedure for the enforcement of an interim relief order solely under Article 6 ECHR (§§ 91, 92). The ECtHR considered that the decision to grant or refuse emergency accommodation constituted a civil right and thus held that Article 6 § 1 ECtHR was applicable. The case concerned asylum-seekers who were without accommodation at the time of the events, and in whose favour the urgent-applications judge of the administrative court ordered the State to provide them with emergency accommodation.

30 December 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Decision on admissibility - Effective remedy - Exhaustion of domestic remedies - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness | Countries: Congo, Democratic Republic of the - France - Georgia

Article 33(2)(d) of 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, read in conjunction with Article 2(q) thereof and Article 2 of Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark annexed to the EU Treaty and to the FEU Treaty, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State other than the Kingdom of Denmark which provides for the possibility of rejecting as inadmissible, in whole or in part, an application for international protection within the meaning of Article 2(b) of that directive, which has been made to that Member State by a national of a third country or a stateless person whose previous application for international protection, made to the Kingdom of Denmark, has been rejected by the latter Member State.

22 September 2022 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Decision on admissibility - International protection - Safe third country | Countries: Denmark - Georgia - Germany

14 January 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Decision on admissibility | Countries: Russian Federation - Ukraine

The Court reiterated that Article 1 (obligation to respect human rights) of the European Convention limited its scope to persons within the jurisdiction of the States Parties to the Convention. In the present case, it noted that the applicants were not within Belgium’s jurisdiction in respect of the circumstances complained of under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. The Court also considered that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was inapplicable in the present case. The entry to Belgian territory which would have resulted from the visas being issued did not engage a “civil” right within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. Lastly, the Court noted that this conclusion did not prejudice the endeavours being made by the States Parties to facilitate access to asylum procedures through their embassies and/or consular representations.

5 May 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Decision on admissibility - Effective remedy - Jurisdiction - Visas | Countries: Belgium - Lebanon - Syrian Arab Republic

21 April 2020 | Publisher: National Authorities | Document type: General Comments/Recommendations

September 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae

The second subparagraph of Article 46(2) of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that subsidiary protection status, granted under legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not offer the ‘same rights and benefits as those offered by the refugee status under Union and national law’, within the meaning of that provision, so that a court of that Member State may not dismiss an appeal brought against a decision considering an application unfounded in relation to refugee status but granting subsidiary protection status as inadmissible on the grounds of insufficient interest on the part of the applicant in maintaining the proceedings where it is found that, under the applicable national legislation, those rights and benefits afforded by each international protection status are not genuinely identical. Such an appeal may not be dismissed as inadmissible, even if it is found that, having regard to the applicant’s particular circumstances, granting refugee status could not confer on him more rights and benefits than granting subsidiary protection status, in so far as the applicant does not, or has not yet, relied on rights which are granted by virtue of refugee status, but which are not granted, or are granted only to a limited extent, by virtue of subsidiary protection status.

18 October 2018 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Decision on admissibility - Effective remedy | Countries: Afghanistan - Slovenia

On 18 October, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment on a preliminary reference submitted by the Slovenian Supreme Court, on the difference between refugee and subsidiary protection statuses. The need for a preliminary ruling arose in the context of asylum proceedings, where a minor national of Afghanistan was granted subsidiary protection status, following several unsuccessful legal challenges. When the issue was brought before the Supreme Court of Slovenia, the domestic judges decided to refer a question to the CJEU regarding the admissibility of the applicant’s appeal against his subsidiary protection status in the context of sufficient interest, according to Article 46 (2) of Directive 2013/32/EU. The question was centred on the difference in cessation and duration requirements of the two statuses, as well as the ancillary rights thereof. The Court first noted that the recitals of Directive 2011/95/EU indicate that EU legislators intended to establish an integral framework for all beneficiaries of international protection, save for objectively necessary exceptions for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status. After analysing the content of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Court stated that this article sets a requirement for a restrictive interpretation of any exception from the right to an effective remedy before a court, such as the one introduced by the aforementioned article of Directive 2013/32/EU. As such, for a subsidiary protection beneficiary’s action to be deemed inadmissible due to lack of sufficient interest, the rights and benefits granted must indeed be the same as those the applicant would enjoy if they held refugee status, even if the difference only encompasses ancillary rights. Moreover, a difference between the duration of the two statuses has to be regarded as difference in rights and benefits that justifies an admissible legal challenge. Lastly, any relevant assessment on the existence of different rights and benefits for international protection beneficiaries should not depend on the appellant’s individual situation, but rather on an overall assessment of national legislation. According to the Court’s restrictive interpretation, this is dictated by the text of Article 46 (2), as well as the need for the predictability of this legal provision, which would vary unacceptably according to each applicant’s personal circumstances. ELENA Weekly Legal Update - 19 October 2018

18 October 2018 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Decision on admissibility - Effective remedy | Countries: Afghanistan - Slovenia