Common European Asylum System in a Changing World

J. N. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, C-601/15 PPU The case concerned a third-country national who entered the Netherlands in 1995. After the rejection of his third asylum claim in 2014 he was ordered to leave the territory of the EU, with a ten-year entry ban. He had been convicted 21 times for criminal offences and was sentenced to terms of imprisonment and fines. In January 2015 he was arrested for theft and for breach of the entry ban and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, during which he made a fourth asylum claim. After serving his sentence he was placed in detention as an asylum seeker under domestic law transposing Article 8(3)(e) of the recast Reception Conditions Directive (RCD), on the basis that this was required for the protection of national security or public order. He challenged his detention and when the matter came before the Raad van State it referred the following questions to the CJEU under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure: The CJEU ruled that Article 8(3)(e) of the recast Reception Conditions Directive fulfils the requirements of proportionality by virtue of the strictly circumscribed framework regulating its use. In light of Article 52(3) of the Charter, Article 8(3)(e) therefore complies with Article 5(1)(f ) of the ECHR. Haqbin, C-233/18 Zubair Haqbin, an Afghan national, arrived in Belgium as an unaccompanied minor. After having lodged an application for international protection, he was hosted in a reception centre. Later he was involved in a brawl with other residents and arrested. He was released the following day, but as a consequence, he was excluded for a period of 15 days from accommodation and further material assistance in the reception facility. The CJEU ruled, that a sanction imposed in response of serious breaches of the rules of the accommodation centre or of seriously violent behaviour on behalf of an applicant for international protection cannot include withdrawal of material reception conditions relating to housing, food or clothing, even if it is temporary. Authorities should take into particular consideration any such sanction in cases of vulnerable applicants and unaccompanied minors. Respect for human dignity , within the meaning of Article 1 of the EU Charter, requires that the application of Article 20(4) of the Reception Directive does not bring the person concerned in a situation of extreme material poverty that does not allow that person to meet their most basic needs such as a place to live, food, clothing and personal hygiene, that undermines their physical or mental health or puts that person in a state of degradation incompatible with human dignity. 5.3 Other CEAS related instruments As mentioned above, the Common European Asylum Policy is a very complex issue and it cannot be limited solely to CEAS legislative instruments. The CJEU case law listed below should at least illustrate the relevance of judicial interpretation of CEAS related instruments (some of them are shortly described in Chapter 7) for asylum policy application.

105

Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker