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

EU Documents

  1. Directive 2013/32/EU of 26 June 2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast), OJ L 180/60, 29 June 2013.

UNHCR Documents

  1. UNHCR, Improving Asylum Procedures, March 2010, in Section VI.2.4.3.

Cases

  1. H.I.D. and B.A. v. Refugee Applications Commissioner and others (Ireland), C-175/11, Court of Justice of the European Union, 31 January 2013.
  2. N.S. v Secretary of State for the Home Department: M.E. & others v Refugee Applications Commissioner, joined cases C-411/10 and C-493/10,  Court of Justice of the European Union, 21 December 2011.
  3. Brahim Samba Diouf v. Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration, C-69/10, Court of Justice of the European Union, 27 July 2011.
  4. M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece, Grand Chamber, (European Court of Human Rights), 21 January 2011 (see Section V.1.2).
  5. M.B. and others v. Turkey, (European Court of Human Rights), judgment of 26 August 2010, appl. 36009/08.
  6. Gebremedhin v. France (European Court of Human Rights), judgment of 26 April 2007, appl. 25389/05.

Readings

Core

  1. ECRE-ELENA, ‘Survey on Legal Aid for Asylum Seekers in Europe’, October 2010.

Extended

  1. E. Brouwer, Digital borders and real rights: effective remedies for Third-Country nationals in the Schengen Information System, (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff: 2008), Chapters 9–10.
  2. R. Byrne, ‘Remedies of Limited Effect: Appeals under the forthcoming Directive on EU Minimum Standards on Procedures’, European Journal of Migration and Law, vol. 7 (2005), pp. 71–86.
  3. I. Staffans, ‘Judicial Protection and the New European Asylum Regime’, European Journal of Migration and Law, vol. 3 (2010), pp. 273–297.
  4. M. Reneman, ‘An EU Right to Interim Protection during Appeal Proceedings in Asylum Cases?’ European Journal of Migration and Law, vol. 12, no. 4 (2010), pp. 407-434.
  5. D. Baldinger, ’Rigorous Scrutiny Versus Marginal Review: Standards on Judicial Scrutiny and Evidence in International and European Asylum Law’ (Oisterwijk: Wolf Legal Publishers, 2013).