Common European Asylum System in a Changing World

Al Chodor, C-528/15 The case relates to the interpretation of Article 28 of the DR III on the conditions of the detention of asylum seekers pending a transfer to another Member State. An Iraqi male and his two minor children were detained by the Czech police in May 2015 pending their transfer to Hungary pursuant to the DR and Article 129(1) of the Czech Aliens Act. The CJEU noted that the meaning of Article 6 of the EU Charter should be defined in light of the established case law of the ECtHR, which requires any measure on deprivation of liberty to be accessible, precise, and foreseeable. Article 2(n) of the Dublin III Regulation requires the criteria to establish a ‘risk of absconding’ to be ‘defined by law’. The CJEU held that the objective criteria to define a ‘risk of absconding’ must be established in a binding provision of general application. In the absence of that, Article 28(2) the Czech Aliens Act is inapplicable and detention on this ground must be declared unlawful. Mirza, C-695/15 PPU The right of a Member State to send an applicant to a safe third country in Article 3(3) DRIII is not limited in time, operates subject to the requirements of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive, and can be exercised by any Member State, whether responsible pursuant to DRIII or otherwise. The wording of Article 33(1) of that directive does not restrict this right. M.A. and Others, C-661/17 This case deals mainly with Brexit implication and the best interest of the child. A family (parents and a child) applied for asylum in Ireland, after having been residents in the UK for 6 years. The Irish authorities sent them back the UK, which accepted them. The applicants tried to challenge their return to the UK on medical grounds, as well as on grounds relating to the country’s future withdrawal from the EU. The CJEU was asked to rule on the relevant Brexit implications, as well as on several interpretative issues regarding Article 17, best interests of the child and effective remedy. The finding is consistent with the recommendations stemming from the UNHCR and the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) on how to deal with the principle of the best interests of the child in asylum procedures. Jafari, C-646/16 Two sisters from Afghanistan with their children came to Europe through Serbia to Croatia and then to Slovenia and they lodged their application in Austria, finally. The CJEU ruled in the case, that a third-country national whose entry was tolerated by the authorities of one Member State faced with the arrival of an unusually large number of third-country nationals seeking transit through that Member State in order to lodge an application for international protection in another Member State, without fulfilling the entry conditions generally imposed in the first Member State, must be regarded as having ‘irregularly crossed’ the border of the first Member State within the meaning of that provision. Article 13(1) of the Dublin Regulation III therefore applies and Croatia is deemed to be responsible for the protection claims. A.S., C-490/16 A.S., a Syrian national, crossed from Serbia to Croatia at a designated border crossing point, accompanied by the Serbian authorities. He was then handed over to the Croatian

93