ECRE is currently working on redeveloping the website. Visitors can still access the database and search for asylum-related judgments up until 2021.
Spain – Constitutional Court, 21 December 2010, 142/2010
Country of Decision:
Country of Applicant:
Date of Decision:
21-12-2010
Citation:
Nº 142/2010
Court Name:
Constitutional Court
Keywords:
Relevant Legislative Provisions:
European Union Law > EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 > Art 10 > Art 10.1 (d)
European Union Law > EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 > Art 10
Council of Europe Instruments > EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms > Article 6 > Art 6.1
Council of Europe Instruments > EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms > Article 6
European Union Law > EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 > Art 10
Council of Europe Instruments > EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms > Article 6 > Art 6.1
Council of Europe Instruments > EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms > Article 6
Printer-friendly version
PDF version of Summary
Headnote:
This case concerned the disproportionate delay in processing the applicant’s claim for asylum on appeal. The applicant was informed that it would take eighteen months for his case to be heard. He lodged an appeal before the Constitutional Court (as a last resort) claiming the right to due process constitutionally guaranteed under Art 24.2 of the Spanish Constitution to enjoy legal process without undue delay.
Facts:
The applicant was refused asylum in the provisional admission procedure (first stage). An appeal was lodged to the Administrative Court on the 28th July 2009. In response the applicant received a formal court notification scheduling a court hearing on the 15th February 2011, a year and 6 months after the appeal had been lodged.
Decision & Reasoning:
The applicant argued that scheduling the court hearing within a period of eighteen months was unreasonable and violated his right to effective judicial protection and the right to have his case heard without undue delay; and that both rights were intimately connected. The applicant added that the delay was particularly relevant in an asylum procedure as the rejection of the application in the provisional admission procedure resulted in the applicant having an irregular immigration status, and could therefore face expulsion from Spanish territory. It was held that both European and national legislation provide that, when determining whether a period set by the Court is or is not considered as an undue delay, the “period scheduled by the Court has to be reasonable”. The discussion turned on the meaning of the concept of “reasonable period”.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the delay occurred as a result of a high workload within the court system. Nevertheless, it stated that this fact does not change the disproportionate nature of the delay, and the contravention of the right to due process and to be heard without undue delay.
Outcome:
The appeal was partially successful: it was declared that the right to have a case heard without undue delay was infringed. Nevertheless, the possibility of bringing the date of the court hearing forward was rejected.
Observations/Comments:
The statement of the Constitutional Court is particularly relevant because the Courts’ systems and the length of its processes cause the delay of many asylum cases and/or appeals.
Case Law Cited:
ECtHR - Lenaerts v Belgium (Application no. 50857/99)
