Court of Justice extends the concept of authorities enabled to receive applications for international protection under the Asylum Procedures Directive
The Court of Justice has just given its judgment in Ministerio Fiscal (Autorité susceptible de recevoir une demande de protection internationale) (C-36/20 PPU), a preliminary ruling requested by the Court of Preliminary Investigation No 3 of San Bartolomé de Tirajana, Spain (Juzgado de Instrucción nº 3 de San Bartolomé de Tirajana). The case concerns the interpretation of Article 6(1) and Article 26 of the Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32 and of Article 17(1) and (2) and Article 8(3) of Directive 2013/33 on standards for the reception of applicants for international protection.
The request was made against the background of a refoulement decision taken, inter alia, against a Malian national who made an application for international protection to the referring court after the boat in which he was travelling was intercepted by the authorities of Spain off the coast of that Member State. The Court of Justice was asked whether a judicial authority such as a court of preliminary investigation, which, under national law, is competent to order the detention of third country nationals in a removal centre, can be regarded as one of the ‘other authorities’ likely to receive applications for international protection referred to in Article 6(1) of Directive 2013/32. In the affirmative, the referring court asked about the information rights of the third country national in the procedure.
In its judgment today, the Court of Justice ruled that examining magistrates called upon to adjudicate on the detention of a third country national without a legal right of residence fall within the concept of ‘other authorities’, within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2013/32, which are likely to receive applications for international protection, even though they are not competent, under national law, to register such applications. According to the Court of Justice, the EU legislature intended to adopt a broad definition of those authorities which, without being competent to register applications for international protection, may nevertheless receive such applications. The concept of ‘other authorities’ in Article 6(1) of Directive 2013/32 can, therefore, encompass both administrative and judicial authorities. This interpretation is reinforced by the objectives of the Asylum Procedures Directive, one of which is to guarantee effective access to the procedure for granting international protection. To prohibit a judicial authority from receiving applications for international protection would be to hinder the achievement of that objective, in particular with regard to very rapid procedures in which the applicant’s hearing before a court or tribunal may be the first opportunity to exercise the right to make such an application.
As regards the obligations incumbent on examining magistrates as ‘other authorities’, the Court of Justice has ruled that such magistrates are required to inform the applicant as to the specific procedures for lodging such an application. The Court has also ruled that the fact that it is not possible to find accommodation in a humanitarian reception centre cannot justify holding an applicant for international protection in detention.
The judgment is available here.
The request was made against the background of a refoulement decision taken, inter alia, against a Malian national who made an application for international protection to the referring court after the boat in which he was travelling was intercepted by the authorities of Spain off the coast of that Member State. The Court of Justice was asked whether a judicial authority such as a court of preliminary investigation, which, under national law, is competent to order the detention of third country nationals in a removal centre, can be regarded as one of the ‘other authorities’ likely to receive applications for international protection referred to in Article 6(1) of Directive 2013/32. In the affirmative, the referring court asked about the information rights of the third country national in the procedure.
In its judgment today, the Court of Justice ruled that examining magistrates called upon to adjudicate on the detention of a third country national without a legal right of residence fall within the concept of ‘other authorities’, within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2013/32, which are likely to receive applications for international protection, even though they are not competent, under national law, to register such applications. According to the Court of Justice, the EU legislature intended to adopt a broad definition of those authorities which, without being competent to register applications for international protection, may nevertheless receive such applications. The concept of ‘other authorities’ in Article 6(1) of Directive 2013/32 can, therefore, encompass both administrative and judicial authorities. This interpretation is reinforced by the objectives of the Asylum Procedures Directive, one of which is to guarantee effective access to the procedure for granting international protection. To prohibit a judicial authority from receiving applications for international protection would be to hinder the achievement of that objective, in particular with regard to very rapid procedures in which the applicant’s hearing before a court or tribunal may be the first opportunity to exercise the right to make such an application.
As regards the obligations incumbent on examining magistrates as ‘other authorities’, the Court of Justice has ruled that such magistrates are required to inform the applicant as to the specific procedures for lodging such an application. The Court has also ruled that the fact that it is not possible to find accommodation in a humanitarian reception centre cannot justify holding an applicant for international protection in detention.
The judgment is available here.
https://eulawlive.com/court-of-justice-extends-the-concept-of-authorities-enabled-to-receive-applications-for-international-protection-under-the-asylum-procedures-directive/
Interessant artikel? Deel het eens met uw netwerk en help mee met het verspreiden van de bekendheid van dit blog. Er staan wellicht nog meer artikelen op dit weblog die u zullen boeien. Kijk gerust eens rond. Zelf graag wat willen plaatsen? Mail dan webmaster@vreemdelingenrecht.com In verband met geldwolven die denken geld te kunnen claimen op krantenartikelen die op een blog als deze worden geplaatst maar na meestal een dag voor de krantenlezers aan leeswaardigheid hebben ingeboet terwijl wij vreemdelingenrecht specialisten ze soms wel nog jaren gebruiken om er een kopie van te maken voor een zaak ga ik over tot het plaatsen van alleen het eerste stukje. Ja ik weet het: de kans dat u doorklikt is geringer dan wanneer het hele artikel hier staat en een kopie van het orgineel maken handig kan zijn voor uw zaak. Wilt u zelf wat overnemen van dit weblog. Dat mag. Zet er alleen even een link bij naar het desbetreffende artikel zodat mensen niet alleen dat wat u knipt en plakt kunnen lezen maar dat ook kunnen doen in de context. Subscribe to Vreemdelingenrecht.com blog by Email
Kijk ook eens op dit reisblog: https://www.europevisitandvisa.com/
Kijk ook eens op dit boekenblog bijvoorbeeld voor: Review of "House on endless waters" by Emona Elon - Amsterdam Jews during the war
House on Endless Waters: A Novel (English Edition)
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten