folder VI.2.4 Procedures for Granting Protection

Main Debates

Has the first phase of harmonisation of EC asylum law brought about consistency of decision-making and harmonisation in practice? If not, what further steps are required to achieve these aims?

What do the extensive exceptions and qualifications to protection criteria and procedural safeguards in EU instruments mean for access to a fair and effective refugee status determination process?

Cases

See cases under sections 2.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.4.5 and 2.4.6 and their respective sub-sections. 

Categories

folder VI.2.4.1 Responsibility, including the Dublin System

Main Debates

Distribution mechanisms v. protection obligations.

Who controls the identity of the asylum seeker?

Does the Dublin system provide sufficient safeguards against refoulement?

Are there risks that asylum seekers will not receive any substantive claim examination in the EU as a result of the Dublin system?

Can the Early Warning Mechanism in the recast Dublin III Regulation provide for more solidarity and fairer sharing of responsibility for asylum-seekers in the EU?

 

Main Points

Solidarity and ’fair sharing of responsibility’ for asylum and refugee protection in the EU

Allocating responsibility for determining asylum claims

Implementing Dublin without prior harmonization in asylum policies

Identity and data protection

 

Editor’s Note

An analysis of the Dublin rules should consider the following:

•Â Â Â  Are they compatible with the 1951 Geneva Convention and the ECHR?

•Â Â Â  What kind of disputes might arise as to how to interpret the Dublin II rules?

•Â Â Â  Is Dublin II a burden-shifting mechanism? What can be done to balance its impact on the EU’s external border States? 

 

folder VI.2.4.2 Minimum Standards for Reception Conditions

Main Debate

Has the EU set an adequate standard for reception conditions?

 

Main Points

Purposes of EU power over reception conditions

Objectives of the Reception Conditions Directive

Level of obligations in Directive

Exceptions from obligations

 

Editor’s Note

Is the recast Directive likely to raise standards anywhere?

What disputes might arise concerning its interpretation?

What are the consequences (legal and otherwise) of States’ failure to respect their obligations to provide minimum reception conditions in practice?

folder VI.2.4.3 Minimum Standards for Normal Procedures

Main Debates

What constitute appropriate minimum standards?

Harmonisation of standards v. deference to state law, policy and practice

Rights of vulnerable applicants to procedural protections (e.g. separated children, traumatized asylum-seekers)

 

Main Points

Low level of common minimum standards

Extended safeguards

Effective remedies

folder VI.2.4.6 Appeals

Main Debates

What is an effective remedy?

What is an independent tribunal?

Must appeal courts take into account new circumstances arising after the decision on the initial asylum claims?

Do appeals which do not have suspensive effect (ie. do not permit the appellant to remain in the country awaiting the outcome of the appeal) satisfy the requirements of an effective remedy?

Main Points

The meaning of ‘effective remedy’

Right to legal assistance in preparing appeals