CJEU: Advocate General Opinion on the interpretation of effective judicial protection and mandatory time limits in asylum proceedings

Date: 
Thursday, December 5, 2019

On 5 December 2019, Advocate General (AG) Bobek delivered his opinion on the interpretation of Article 46(3) Directive 2013/32 concerning guarantees of effective judicial protection and the use of mandatory time limits in asylum procedures in respect of case C-406/18, PG v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal. The case concerns the rejected request for international protection of an Iraqi applicant who arrived in the Hungarian transit zone of Tompa on the Hungary/Serbia border. 

The AG first addressed whether a court’s lack of power to alter a decision adopted by an administrative body in an international protection procedure is compatible with the right to an effective remedy provided for in Article 46(3) Directive 2013/32. The AG noted that the power to annul administrative decisions does not breach the requirement of effective judicial protection and that Member States are free to determine how to examine such matters. He reiterated findings in Alheto and Torubarov, concluding that Article 46(3) Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation that does not give courts the power to alter administrative decisions in matters of international protection. He added that to give practical effect to the guarantee of an effective remedy, in accordance with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, a new decision must be adopted within a short period of time and comply with the assessment contained in the judgment annulling the previous decision.

The AG secondly addressed the issue of whether Article 46(3) Directive 2013/32 precludes legislation from setting a mandatory time limit of 60 days for a review of administrative decisions in cases of international protection. He added that an adequate time limit must allow for a full and effective review of the issues while respecting the procedural rights of applicants, which include guarantees of, inter alia: the presence of an interpreter; the offer of legal advice; and free legal assistance. The AG concluded that the meaning of an adequate length of time is a matter for national courts to assess in consideration of the obligations to conduct a thorough examination while also guaranteeing the applicant’s rights under Directive 2013/32. When such rights cannot be guaranteed, the court must disapply the time limit and complete the assessment as swiftly as possible.


This item was reproduced with the permission of ECRE from the ELENA Weekly Legal Update. The purpose of these updates is to inform asylum lawyers and legal organizations supporting asylum seekers and refugees of recent developments in the field of asylum law. Please note that the information provided is taken from publicly available information on the internet. Every reasonable effort is made to make the content accurate and up to date at the time each item is pusexblished but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by ECRE.

 

 

Keywords: 
Effective remedy (right to)