Common European Asylum System in a Changing World

Even if the scope of application of the EU Charter and the jurisdiction of both European courts and national courts is not quite clear, we can try to give at least a general guide for differentiation: • ECHR rules on matters which the ECtHR traditionally has qualified as being within the ‘jurisdiction’ of its High Contracting Parties. • EU Charter – is only binding on the Member States when they act in the scope of Union law 12 • Only where an EU legal act calls for national implementing measures, national authorities and courts remain free to apply national standards of protection of fundamental rights, on condition that the level of protection provided for by the Charter, as interpreted by the Court, and the primacy, unity and effectiveness of EU law are not thereby compromised. 13 Due to primacy of EU law effect - where the ECHR sets out minimum standards, EU law sets the standard. To conclude The asylum law within Europe is regulated by a combination of national law, EU law including primary law, EU Charter and secondary legislation, the ECHR, the ESC and by other international instruments, namely the 1951 Geneva Convention, entered into by EU Member States. The asylum law interpretation falls, therefore under the jurisdiction of CJEU and Member States courts and ECHR in the area of human rights relevant in asylum cases. Despite differences at the national and regional levels, the goal of the modern refugee regime is to provide protection to individuals forced to flee their homes because their countries are unwilling or unable to protect them. 1.5 Selected case law The key terms of the international refugee law are subject to courts interpretation. Listed below are some examples of such interpretative judgments of international and national courts in the European context Family life Concerning family reunification of children of foreign nationality with parents, or a parent, settled in a Contracting State in I.A.A. and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) (§§ 38-41). The criteria, including notably the best interests of the child, must be sufficiently reflected in the reasoning in the decisions of the domestic authorities (El Ghatet v. Switzerland).

solve the question of whether an EU Member State, in this case Ireland, could be held responsible under the Convention for the mere execution of an EU Regulation. See Matthews v United Kingdom, no 24833/94, ECHR 1999 and Bosphorus v Ireland, no 45036/98 ECHR 2005T

19