Spain - Supreme Court, 17 February 2010, 548/2008
Country of Decision:
Country of Applicant:
Date of Decision:
17-02-2010
Citation:
Nº 548/2008
Court Name:
The Supreme Court
Keywords:
Relevant Legislative Provisions:
European Union Law > EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 > Art 6 > Art 6.1
European Union Law > EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 > Art 6 > Art 6.2
European Union Law > EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 > Art 6 > Art 6.2
National / Other Legislative Provisions:
International Convention on Maritime Search & Rescue 1979
Printer-friendly version
PDF version of Summary
Headnote:
This case concerned the right to apply for asylum and seek an effective judicial remedy where the applicants had not reached Spanish territory (by land or sea). The Spanish Commission for Refugee Assistance (CEAR) lodged an appeal before the Supreme Court against a decision of the High National Court. CEAR alleged that the applicants’ right to seek asylum and the right to effective judicial protection had been violated. The Supreme Court held that the applicants could not exercise those rights as they had not arrived on Spanish territory.
Facts:
CEAR initiated legal proceedings through the Special Procedure for the Protection of Fundamental Rights (Art 14 section 1 of the second chapter of the Spanish Constitution) against the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as a result of the manner in which the boat “MARINE I” was rescued.
The facts relate to the sinking of an African boat crossing the territorial coastal waters of Senegal and Mauritania on their way to the Canary Islands. The Spanish boat Marino Luz de Mar rescued the boat with 369 passengers who were brought to the Mauritanian port of Nouadhibou instead of the Canary Islands. All the passengers were repatriated except for 23 people (most of them from Pakistan) who wanted to reach the Canary Islands but were detained in Nouadhibou for several days until their repatriation was to be executed.Decision & Reasoning:
CEAR alleged that certain fundamental rights of the twenty-three passengers of the MARINE I, recognised under the Spanish Constitution, had been violated. Among many other infringements, CEAR argued that the right to seek asylum had been denied as well as the right to an effective judicial remedy. Spanish asylum law states that foreign persons seeking international protection have to submit an application personally, or, at least, by a person who represents them if the applicant subsequently confirms the declaration. Therefore, CEAR argued that “the passengers of the boat “MARINE I” did not get the opportunity to disembark in a Spanish harbour and were carried straight to a foreign country which prevented them of availing themselves to the right to seek asylum under Spanish law.”
The Supreme Court found that these twenty-three passengers, potentially asylum seekers, were in foreign territory when the boat was rescued and had no legitimate right to demand a transfer to Spain. It was also expressed that the actions undertaken by the Spanish Administration preventing the arrival of the boat to Spanish coasts cannot be considered as an explicit obstacle to the right to seek asylum. As these passengers never reached Spanish territory, they were never entitled to this right to seek asylum in Spain.
Outcome:
The appeal was unsuccessful.
Other sources cited:
