Common European Asylum System in a Changing World

Mehmet Arslan v Policie ČR, C-534/11 The case concerns detention conditions. The Returns Directive lays down common standards and procedures for for Member States for the removal of third-country nationals staying illegally in their territory. Those nationals may, under certain conditions, be detained for a period generally not exceeding six months. The CJEU held that an asylum seeker may, on the basis of national law, be detained for the purposes of removal on the ground of illegal stay where the application for asylum has been made with the sole aim of delaying or jeopardizing enforcement of the return decision. The national authorities must, however, examine on a case-by-case basis whether that is the case and whether it is objectively necessary and proportionate to keep the asylum seeker in detention in order to prevent them from definitively evading return. Tall, C-239/14 A national of Senegal, Mr. Tall, made a subsequent application for asylum following the rejection of his first claim by the Belgian authorities and courts. The CJEU held that the non-suspensive effect of a decision not to further examine a subsequent application under Article 32 of the 2005 Asylum Procedures Directive is not in violation of Articles 19(2) and 47 of the Charter since the decision’s enforcement will not lead to the applicant being removed and is therefore unlikely to expose the applicant to a risk of inhumane treatment. Asylum procedure Directive (recast) Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection A V Migrationsverket, C-404/17 The main proceedings concern a Serbian national who applied for asylum in Sweden. The CJEU held that a Member State cannot rely on the rebuttable presumption under Articles 36 and 37 of the 2013 Procedures Directive (APD) in respect of the safe country of origin concept and subsequently find the application to be manifestly unfounded in accordance with Article 31(8)(b) without having fully implemented and complied with the procedures under the APD relating to the designation of countries as safe countries of origin. Ahmedbekova, C-652/16 The case concerns applications for international protection lodged separately by family members. Article 33(2)(e) of the recast APD does not cover a situation in which an adult lodges, in her own name and on behalf of her minor child, an application for international protection which is based, inter alia, on a family tie with another person who has lodged a separate application for international protection. The involvement of an applicant for international protection in bringing a complaint against their country of origin before the European Court of Human Rights cannot in principle be regarded, for the purposes of assessing the reasons for persecution referred to in Article 10 of Directive 2011/95, as proof of that applicant’s membership of a ‘particular social group’, within the meaning of Article 10(1)(d) of that directive, but must be regarded as a reason for persecution for ‘political opinion’, within the meaning of Article 10(1)(e) of the directive, if there are valid grounds for fearing that involvement in bringing that claim would be perceived by that country as an act of political dissent against which it might consider taking retaliatory action. A court is not required to consider evidence during proceedings if it finds that

102