Error message

  • Notice: unserialize(): Error at offset 62 of 68 bytes in variable_initialize() (line 1202 of /var/www/web109/web/includes/
  • Notice: unserialize(): Error at offset 2755 of 18711 bytes in variable_initialize() (line 1202 of /var/www/web109/web/includes/

The impact of European Union law on Family Reunification in Greece

Wednesday, March 9, 2016


Accounting for approximately 30% of all permanent flows towards the EU, family reunification constitutes an integral part of the Union's policy on migration. In regulating the issue, the EU legislator had to strike a balance between protecting external borders and safeguarding human rights, as mandated in articles 2, 3, 6, 21 TEU, and 67 TFEU. With regards to...

Allocating responsibility for an asylum application through Convention rights: The potential impact of ZAT & Others

Thursday, March 3, 2016

This journal entry should be read in conjunction with the EDAL case summary available here, where a summary of the facts is also available.


The presence of migrant and refugee camps in northern France, on the edge of the Schengen zone and just 21 miles away from the UK has long been symbolic of the practical failings of the CEAS and in particular...

Prolonging detention under the Return Directive in Poland

Friday, October 9, 2015


Article 15 of Directive 2008/115/EC on the returns of irregular migrants has been subject to numerous preliminary references before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Interpretative guidance has been given by the CJEU on how the period of pre-removal detention should be calculated as well as the grounds for extending detention under the Directive and the judicial control of a decision...

The Dublin System and the Right to an Effective Remedy – Observations on the preliminary references in the cases of C-155/15 – George Karim v Migrationsverket and C- 63/15 - Mehrdad Ghezelbash v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Tuesday, September 1, 2015


The present article presents some observations on two similar cases pending before the CJEU. It offers some prospective thinking on the opportunity to expand the interpretation of the right to an effective remedy under the Dublin III Regulation (DRIII) - and to go beyond the Abdullahi ruling - as the evolution of the protection landscape after the adoption of the Dublin III Regulation increases procedural safeguards and rights for asylum seekers falling under its scope.  The note also explores the intrinsic links between the right to an effective remedy and...

Analysis of the Strasbourg case-law on Kurdish asylum seekers in Cyprus and the controversial practice of detention

Friday, August 28, 2015


On July 21, 2015 the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found the Republic of Cyprus to be in breach of Articles 5§1 (right to security and liberty) and 5§4 (right to an effective remedy against detention) of the European Convention of Human Rights for the detention of 17 Kurdish asylum seekers. In particular, the Court said that the right of all applicants to speedy proceedings, deciding the lawfulness of their detention, and their right to an effective remedy against detention were violated. These decisions of the ECtHR bring to light the problematic...

Recent challenges to accelerated procedures involving detention in the UK

Friday, August 7, 2015

In Saadi v UK (application No. 13229/03),  the European Court of Human Rights ruled that detention for administrative convenience, for the processing of applications for asylum, as carried out in the UK’s detention centre at Oakington at that time did not violate Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. It was a controversial judgment and there is a powerful joint dissenting opinion, but the European Court of Human Rights had reached the same...

Beyond Non-Refoulement: Status and International Human Rights Law

Thursday, July 30, 2015

1. Introduction

Refugees enjoy a distinct and unique standard of protection under international law within the framework of the international regime for the protection of refugees, which is based on the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. These instruments do not include one of the most fundamental rights of refugees, namely, the right to be granted asylum, an essential premise for the enjoyment of other rights. The drafters of the Refugee Convention were well aware that refugees could find themselves without a country of asylum and...

The CJEU and its interaction with international law in the Qualification Directive: a calculated selectivity?

Thursday, February 12, 2015


The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is playing an ever important role in the development of European asylum law. The CJEU’s jurisdiction to rule in preliminary references as well as direct actions has a substantial impact on the definitional and interpretative guidance of EU asylum legislation. Indeed, the Court’s pronouncements are all the more instrumental given that both EU primary and secondary law make explicit reference to international treaties and human rights law. Given that EU asylum policy must be in accordance with...

Is there a space for Humanitarian Protection within Subsidiary Protection? A reading of M’Bodj

Thursday, February 5, 2015


This article is to be read in conjunction with the EDAL case summary

In two recent judgments, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has provided clarification on the scope of international protection in cases where claimants are suffering from serious illnesses.

Both cases are linked to a request for a residence permit on medical grounds offered by the Belgian Law in the article 9ter of...

The right to an oral hearing in Austrian asylum appeal procedures in the light of Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Friday, January 16, 2015


In Austria, an oral hearing needs to be formally requested both in asylum appeal procedures and administrative procedures in general. Notwithstanding that a request may be lodged, the competent Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht) may dispense with an oral hearing under Section 21 Para. 7 Federal Office Procedure Act (BFA-...