Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Adequate Legal Protection and Good Administration in EU Asylum Procedures: H.N. and beyond

Bogojevic, Sanja LU orcid ; Groussot, Xavier LU and Medzmariashvili, Megi LU (2015) In Common Market Law Review 52(6). p.1635-1659
Abstract
The current European situation is marked by an ongoing migration crisis. On a daily basis we are informed of the ever-increasing number of migrants trying to reach Europe’s border – too often with fatal results. The European Court ofJustice, once described as “tucked away in the fairyland Duchy ofLuxembourg”, is today faced with difficult legal questions concerning EU asylum law – the present case being an example thereof.At first glance, H.N.appears uncontroversial. The judgment is short,delivered in fifty-eight brief paragraphs by the fourth chamber and answers aseemingly straightforward question raised by the Irish Supreme Court:whether Directive 2004/83 – which establishes minimum standards for thequalification and status of third... (More)
The current European situation is marked by an ongoing migration crisis. On a daily basis we are informed of the ever-increasing number of migrants trying to reach Europe’s border – too often with fatal results. The European Court ofJustice, once described as “tucked away in the fairyland Duchy ofLuxembourg”, is today faced with difficult legal questions concerning EU asylum law – the present case being an example thereof.At first glance, H.N.appears uncontroversial. The judgment is short,delivered in fifty-eight brief paragraphs by the fourth chamber and answers aseemingly straightforward question raised by the Irish Supreme Court:whether Directive 2004/83 – which establishes minimum standards for thequalification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons in need of subsidiary protection– permits a MemberState to stipulate in its national law that consideration of an application for subsidiary protection status can only be made if the applicant has first applied for and been refused refugee status. This question is clearly a procedural one, which the ECJ traditionally sees as part of national procedural autonomy tempered only by the obligation to comply with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness and the need to ensure respect for fundamental rights. What we see in this case, however, is an unprecedented reliance on the principle of effectiveness in intervening in national procedural autonomy to secure good administration – a fundamental right enshrined in Article 41 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Right. As such, H.N.is a groundbreaking case with regard to its application of the principle of effectiveness and the right to good administration in constraining the Member States’ procedural autonomy to organize the processing of applications for international protectio. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; and
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
EU law, Asylum, Human Rights, EU-rätt, Asyl, Mänskliga rättigheter
in
Common Market Law Review
volume
52
issue
6
pages
1635 - 1659
publisher
Kluwer Law International
ISSN
0165-0750
DOI
10.54648/cola2015034
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
728fc35a-a86d-4348-953a-d12d7ca1a9d0
date added to LUP
2023-02-26 12:34:11
date last changed
2023-03-22 14:00:12
@article{728fc35a-a86d-4348-953a-d12d7ca1a9d0,
  abstract     = {{The current European situation is marked by an ongoing migration crisis. On a daily basis we are informed of the ever-increasing number of migrants trying to reach Europe’s border – too often with fatal results. The European Court ofJustice, once described as “tucked away in the fairyland Duchy ofLuxembourg”, is today faced with difficult legal questions concerning EU asylum law – the present case being an example thereof.At first glance, H.N.appears uncontroversial. The judgment is short,delivered in fifty-eight brief paragraphs by the fourth chamber and answers aseemingly straightforward question raised by the Irish Supreme Court:whether Directive 2004/83 – which establishes minimum standards for thequalification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons in need of subsidiary protection– permits a MemberState to stipulate in its national law that consideration of an application for subsidiary protection status can only be made if the applicant has first applied for and been refused refugee status. This question is clearly a procedural one, which the ECJ traditionally sees as part of national procedural autonomy tempered only by the obligation to comply with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness and the need to ensure respect for fundamental rights. What we see in this case, however, is an unprecedented reliance on the principle of effectiveness in intervening in national procedural autonomy to secure good administration – a fundamental right enshrined in Article 41 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Right. As such, H.N.is a groundbreaking case with regard to its application of the principle of effectiveness and the right to good administration in constraining the Member States’ procedural autonomy to organize the processing of applications for international protectio.}},
  author       = {{Bogojevic, Sanja and Groussot, Xavier and Medzmariashvili, Megi}},
  issn         = {{0165-0750}},
  keywords     = {{EU law; Asylum; Human Rights; EU-rätt; Asyl; Mänskliga rättigheter}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{6}},
  pages        = {{1635--1659}},
  publisher    = {{Kluwer Law International}},
  series       = {{Common Market Law Review}},
  title        = {{Adequate Legal Protection and Good Administration in EU Asylum Procedures: H.N. and beyond}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/cola2015034}},
  doi          = {{10.54648/cola2015034}},
  volume       = {{52}},
  year         = {{2015}},
}