Common European Asylum System in a Changing World

those grounds or evidence were relied on in a late stage of the appeal proceedings or are not presented in a sufficiently specific manner to be duly considered or, in respect of evidence, it finds that that evidence is not significant or insufficiently distinct from evidence which the determining authority was already able to take into account. Ibrahim, Sharqawi andOthers andMagamadov – JoinedCases C-297/17, C-318/17, C-319/17, C-438/17 These cases concern the option provided for in the Asylum Procedures Directive to reject applications for asylum as being inadmissible because of the prior granting of subsidiary protection in another Member State. Stateless Palestinians that resided in Syria were granted subsidiary protection in Bulgaria and a Russian national who declares himself to be Chechen was granted such protection in Poland. As the further applications for asylum that they subsequently submitted in Germany were rejected, they brought actions before the German courts. The CJEU recalls that, in the context of the Common European Asylum System, which is based on the principle of mutual trust between the Member States , it must be presumed that a Member State’s treatment of applicants for international protection and persons granted subsidiary protection complies with the requirements of the Charter, the Geneva Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. An asylum seeker may be transferred to the Member State that is normally responsible for processing their application or that has previously granted him subsidiary protection unless the expected living conditions in that Member State to those granted international protection would expose them to a situation of extreme material poverty, contrary to the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment X., Y. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, C-180/17 The CJEU ruled that article 46 of 2013/32/EU Procedures Directive and Article 13 of Return Directive 2008/115/EC read in the light of Articles 18, 19(2) and 47 of the EU Charter must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, whilst making a provision for appeals against judgments delivered at first instance upholding a decision rejecting an application for international protection and imposing an obligation to return, does not confer on that remedy automatic suspensory effect even in the case where the person concerned invokes a serious risk of infringement of the principle of non- refoulement. E. G., C-662/17 The case concerns an Afghan unaccompanied minor who arrived in Slovenia in 2015 and claimed asylum. The CJEU ruled on whether an individual could appeal a decision which refused refugee status but granted subsidiary protection status, even if the rights and benefits afforded by each international protection status are identical in national law (Article 46(2) of Asylum Procedures Directive ) . Torubarov, C-556/17 Alexei Torubarov, who is politically persecuted by the Putin regime, has been recognized as a refugee after a long “ping-pong game” between the Hungarian asylum authority and a court in Pécs. The preliminary question of the Hungarian court was whether the court can derive power from EU law to alter an administrative decision, specifically from the recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU (rAPD) and Article 47 of the EU Charter. The CJEU held that the court has the right to grant protection if in

103