Common European Asylum System in a Changing World

EXERCISES: 1. Analysis of the CJEU case dealing with interpretation of CEAS instruments Select one of the above listed cases Report your analysis to the others 2. Try to find out a preliminary ruling referred by your national court 3. Below are some examples of simple hypothetical casework scenarios to illustrate the circumstances in which inadmissibility decisions may or may not be appropriate. Every case must be examined carefully, according to the individual facts of the case. Try to solve the cases using the Dublin regulation, Qualification directive and CJEU argumentation and the national immigration rules when necessary.  Dublin regulation A claimant from non-EU country reached the Member State A by sea and he lodged an asylum application there. Later he submitted another application in the Member State B. The responsible authorities of the state B rejected the application because he had already filed an asylum application in the state A (which is the Member State normally responsible for examining an application under the Dublin Regulation). Is there a possibility for the claimant to challenge the transfer decision and under which conditions? (See the CJEU cases Jawo C-163/17 ,) N.S. andM.E. – Joined Cases C-411/10, C-493/10 above and ECHR case M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece referred in Chapter 1 )  Qualification directive A non-EU state national had been convicted of a serious crime and as a result his refugee status was revoked by the respective authorities of the host Member State in line with security exceptions under Geneva Convention and Qualification Directive. Are there any circumstances which prevent to return refugees to their home countries in such cases? (See M. and X. X. Joined cases C-391/16, C-77/17, C-78/17 above )

109