Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T14:41:15.496Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Court of Justice of the European Union: Preconditions for Exclusion from Refugee Status (Fed. Republic of Ger. V. B & D)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Tom Syring
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Legal Documents
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , February 2011 , pp. 114 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

End notes

* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text available at the Court of Justice of the European Union website (visited Jan. 31, 2011) http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=recherch.

† Language of the case: German.

1 Joined Cases C-57/09 & C-101/09, Ger. v. B, D (Nov. 9, 2010), available at http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/c/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=rechercher&numaff=C-57/09.

2 Council Directive 2004/83/EC, of April 29, 2004, on Minimum Standards for the Qualification and Status of Third Country Nationals or Stateless Persons as Refugees or as Persons who Otherwise Need International Protection and the Content of the Protection Granted, 2004 O.J. (L 304) 12 [hereinafter Directive 2004/83/EC]. The Directive has its legal basis in Article 63 (1) (c) of the Treaty Establishing the European Community, Mar. 25, 1957, 298 U.N.T.S. 11, with subsequent amendments. Consolidated version in 2006 O.J. (C 321) 67.

3 Recent cases involving one or several aspects of the EU asylum acquis include M.S.S. v. Belgium & Greece, App. No. 30696/ 09 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jan. 21, 2011), available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=880339&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 (violation of the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and violation of the right to an effective remedy based on Member States’ neglect of their duty to adequately treat asylum applicants and process their applications); Case C-31/ 09, Bolbol v. Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal (June 17, 2010), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,,HUN,,4c1f62d42,0.html (exclusion from refugee status based on protection or assistance received from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees); Joined Cases C-175/08, C-176/08, C-178/08 & C-179/08, Abdulla et al. v. Germany (Mar. 2, 2010), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUri-Serv/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62008C0175:EN:HTML (exclusion from refugee status based on ceased circumstances in applicant’s country of origin); Case C-465/07, Elgafaji v. Staatssecretaris van Justitie (Feb. 17, 2009), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/499aaee52.html (standard of evidence needed for existence of a serious and individual threat to applicant’s life or person).

4 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, July 28, 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 150.

5 Until 2004, the subsidiary protection regime had been left at the discretion of Member States.

6 Cf. Hélène Lambert & Theo Farrell, The Changing Character of Armed Conflict and the Implications for Refugee Protection Jurisprudence, 22 INT’L J. REF. L. 237, 238 (2010).

7 Directive 2004/83/EC, supra note 3, art. 12(2)(a).

8 Id. art. 12(2)(b).

9 Id. art. 12(2)(c).

10 S.C. Res. 1373, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1373 (Sept. 28, 2001). S.C. Res. 1377, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1377 (Nov. 12, 2001) basically reiterated that declaration.

11 Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on the Application of Specific Measures to Combat Terrorism (2001/931/ CFSP), 2001 O.J. (L 344) 93.

12 Most recently updated by Council Decision 2010/386/CFSP of July 12, 2010, 2010 O.J. (L 178) 28.

13 Gesetz zur Bekämpfung des internationalen Terrorismus [Act to Combat International Terrorism], FED. L. GAZETTE, Jan. 9, 2002, at 361.

14 Cf. Joined Cases C-57/09 & C-101/09, Germany v. B, D, Judgment, ¶ 67 (Nov. 9, 2010).

15 Id. ¶¶ 104-11.

16 In its judgment of December 12, 2006, the Court found that decisions on the list of organizations and persons whose assets are to be frozen based on Regulation 2580/2001, adopted in implementation of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP, lacked an adequate statement of reasons, an opportunity for affected persons or bodies to raise defenses or objections, and effective legal remedies. Cf. Case T-228/2, Organisation des Modjahedines du people d’Iran [People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran], (Ct. of First Instance Dec. 12, 2006) available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62-002A0228:EN:HTML.

17 Proscribed Organizations Appeal Commission [POAC], Appeal No. PC/02/2006, Judgment of Nov. 30, 2007, ¶ 19. For a comprehensive account of the PMOI case, cf. Tom Syring, Fata Morgana and the Lure of Law: Rebuilding a War-torn State after Regime Breakdown: Prospects, Limits, and Illusions, in REBUILDING SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES IN IRAQ: POLICIES, PROGRAMS AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES 53, 67 (Adenrele Awotona ed., 2008).