Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

”Denna politik ska överensstämma med Genèvekonventionen av den 28 juli 1951” - En kritisk analys av EU-domstolens praxis angående det gemensamma asylsystemet

Johansson Corvellec, Pomme LU (2018) JURM02 20182
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Officiellt sett har den Europeiska Unionen (EU) en klar ambition att utveckla ett asylsystem som överensstämmer med skyldigheter enligt internationella instrument för mänskliga rättigheter. Kritiker har dock sedan mer än 20 år ifrågasatt huruvida EU:s regelverk avseende asyl och migration står i överensstämmelse med till exempel principen om non-refoulement som etableras i Genèvekonventionen av den 28 juli 1951.
Denna uppsats analyserar relationen mellan EU:s regelverk avseende asyl och migration och principen om non-refoulement genom att undersöka hur EU-domstolen har dömt i rättsfall rörande principen om non-refoulement inom EU:s asylsystemet och hur det formar skyddsregimen för asylsökande i EU?
Elva rättsfall som under de senaste... (More)
Officiellt sett har den Europeiska Unionen (EU) en klar ambition att utveckla ett asylsystem som överensstämmer med skyldigheter enligt internationella instrument för mänskliga rättigheter. Kritiker har dock sedan mer än 20 år ifrågasatt huruvida EU:s regelverk avseende asyl och migration står i överensstämmelse med till exempel principen om non-refoulement som etableras i Genèvekonventionen av den 28 juli 1951.
Denna uppsats analyserar relationen mellan EU:s regelverk avseende asyl och migration och principen om non-refoulement genom att undersöka hur EU-domstolen har dömt i rättsfall rörande principen om non-refoulement inom EU:s asylsystemet och hur det formar skyddsregimen för asylsökande i EU?
Elva rättsfall som under de senaste två åren aktualiserat relationen mellan EU:s asylsystem och principen om non-refoulement granskas. Utifrån dessa rättsfall identifieras tre huvudfåror i domstolens argumentation: argumentation kring domstolens kompetens och EU-rättens tillämplighet, principen om ömsesidigt förtroende och den teleologiska tolkningsmetoden.
Uppsatsens analys av EU-domstolen praxis visar att domstolen generellt anser att EU:s sekundärrätt står i överensstämmelse med principen om non-refoulement, att domstolen bygger sin tolkning på rationella juridiska argument och att den är konsekvent i förhållande till sin praxis. Undersökningen visar även att domstolen i en majoritet av rättsfallen erinrar om medlemsstaternas skyldighet att efterleva non-refoulementprincipen. Analysen visar dock också på att domstolens tolkningar kan bidra till att den externaliserade delen av asyl- och migrationspolitiken inte omfattas av domstolens kompetens. Den visar även att bruket av principen om ömsesidigt förtroende kan bidra till att principen om non-refoulement förblir vag och att domstolens tillämpning av teleologisk tolkningsmetod kan leda till skönsmässiga bedömningar. (Less)
Abstract
The European Union (EU) has officially expressed an ambition to develop a common European asylum system consistent with international human rights obligations. However, the compatibility of the EU asylum system with international human rights and with the principle of non-refoulement, established in the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951, have been questioned over the last 20 years.
This study examines the interplay between the EU asylum and immigration acquis and international human rights obligations by asking, how the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled in cases involving the principle of non-refoulement within the context of the EU asylum and migration system and how this shapes refuge protection in the EU?
This... (More)
The European Union (EU) has officially expressed an ambition to develop a common European asylum system consistent with international human rights obligations. However, the compatibility of the EU asylum system with international human rights and with the principle of non-refoulement, established in the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951, have been questioned over the last 20 years.
This study examines the interplay between the EU asylum and immigration acquis and international human rights obligations by asking, how the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled in cases involving the principle of non-refoulement within the context of the EU asylum and migration system and how this shapes refuge protection in the EU?
This study reviews eleven cases that have highlighted the interplay between the EU asylum and immigration system and the principle of non-refoulement during the last two years. Through the review of these cases, three forms of argumentation by the CJEU is identified and scrutinized; firstly, argumentation about the jurisdiction of the court and the applicability of EU law; secondly, the principle of mutual trust; and, lastly, the emphasis on the teleological interpretation of the provisions in question.
The analysis of the CJEU jurisprudence shows that the CJEU generally, in the reviewed cases, perceives the EU's secondary law as corresponding to the principle of non-refoulement; that the CJEU bases its interpretation on rational legal arguments; and that the CJEU is consistent with its jurisprudence. The investigation also shows that the CJEU, in a majority of the reviewed cases, reiterates the obligation of Member States to comply with the non-refoulement principle. However, the analysis also shows that the interpretations done by the CJEU can contribute to the exclusion of the externalised asylum and the migration policies from the competence of CJEU. The analysis also shows that the use of the principle of mutual trust can contribute to the principle of non-refoulement remaining vague and that the teleological interpretation method can lead to discretion. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Johansson Corvellec, Pomme LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
“This policy must be in accordance with the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951” - A critical analysis of the CJEU jurisprudence on asylum
course
JURM02 20182
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
EU-rätt, Det gemensamma asylsystemet, EU-domstolen, Principen om non-refoulement
language
Swedish
id
8969497
date added to LUP
2019-04-03 13:23:24
date last changed
2019-04-03 13:23:24
@misc{8969497,
  abstract     = {{The European Union (EU) has officially expressed an ambition to develop a common European asylum system consistent with international human rights obligations. However, the compatibility of the EU asylum system with international human rights and with the principle of non-refoulement, established in the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951, have been questioned over the last 20 years. 
This study examines the interplay between the EU asylum and immigration acquis and international human rights obligations by asking, how the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled in cases involving the principle of non-refoulement within the context of the EU asylum and migration system and how this shapes refuge protection in the EU? 
This study reviews eleven cases that have highlighted the interplay between the EU asylum and immigration system and the principle of non-refoulement during the last two years. Through the review of these cases, three forms of argumentation by the CJEU is identified and scrutinized; firstly, argumentation about the jurisdiction of the court and the applicability of EU law; secondly, the principle of mutual trust; and, lastly, the emphasis on the teleological interpretation of the provisions in question. 
The analysis of the CJEU jurisprudence shows that the CJEU generally, in the reviewed cases, perceives the EU's secondary law as corresponding to the principle of non-refoulement; that the CJEU bases its interpretation on rational legal arguments; and that the CJEU is consistent with its jurisprudence. The investigation also shows that the CJEU, in a majority of the reviewed cases, reiterates the obligation of Member States to comply with the non-refoulement principle. However, the analysis also shows that the interpretations done by the CJEU can contribute to the exclusion of the externalised asylum and the migration policies from the competence of CJEU. The analysis also shows that the use of the principle of mutual trust can contribute to the principle of non-refoulement remaining vague and that the teleological interpretation method can lead to discretion.}},
  author       = {{Johansson Corvellec, Pomme}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{”Denna politik ska överensstämma med Genèvekonventionen av den 28 juli 1951” - En kritisk analys av EU-domstolens praxis angående det gemensamma asylsystemet}},
  year         = {{2018}},
}