EU Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy Droit et Politique de l'Immigration et de l'Asile de l'UE

Print this article

Réfugié d’un Etat membre à l’autre: vers la reconnaissance mutuelle de plein droit ?

Par Jean-Yves Carlier et Eleonora Frasca, Université catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), membres de l’équipe droits et migrations (EDEM)

Ceci est une version révisée de la chronique de jurisprudence annuelle publiée dans le Journal de droit européen (n° 3, mars 2025)

La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne apporte des précisions sur la question des effets à attribuer dans un État membre à une décision relative au statut de réfugié prise dans un autre État membre dans deux arrêts rendus en grande chambre le 18 juin 2024 (QY, C-753/22 et A., C-352/22). Dans ces deux affaires, les requérants cherchent à faire valoir l’effet obligatoire de la décision de reconnaissance du statut de réfugié, obtenue dans un État membre, à l’égard d’une procédure qui se déroule dans un autre État membre. Dans QY Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Effet d’une décision d’octroi du statut de réfugié), il s’agit d’une procédure d’asile dans laquelle une Syrienne demande que le statut de réfugiée obtenu en Grèce soit reconnu en Allemagne qui, à son tour, ne lui a accordé que la protection subsidiaire. Dans A. Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Hamm (Demande d’extradition d’un réfugié vers la Turquie), il s’agit d’une procédure d’extradition d’un Turc, d’origine kurde, reconnu réfugié en Italie, qui fait l’objet en Allemagne d’une demande d’extradition de la part de la Turquie, son pays d’origine. Ces deux affaires ont déjà fait l’objet de nombreux commentaires (Michel; Boucheron; Pahladsingh; Fratea; Simon and Rigaux; Peers). Ici, nous nous centrons sur la question des effets contraignants, dans un autre État membre de l’Union, d’une décision relative au statut de réfugié. Nous raisonnons en trois étapes : premièrement, le passé qui révèle l’aporie du droit européen en matière de (non-)reconnaissance mutuelle des décisions relatives au statut de réfugié (1) ; deuxièmement, le présent des deux jurisprudences commentées, avec la reconnaissance de quelques effets limités de décisions d’octroi du statut de réfugié (2) et, troisièmement, le futur avec, une évolution possible, notamment sous l’influence paradoxale du Pacte, vers la reconnaissance mutuelle des décisions d’octroi du statut de réfugié (3).

Continue reading »

Print this article

Refugee from one Member State to Another: Towards Automatic Mutual Recognition?

By Jean-Yves Carlier and Eleonora Frasca, Université catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), members of the Equipe droits et migrations (EDEM)

This is a revised version of the yearly case law column published in French in the Journal de droit européen (no. 3, March 2025)

In two judgments delivered by the Grand Chamber on 18 June 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) clarified the question of the extraterritorial effects in one Member State of a decision granting refugee status taken in another Member State (QY, C-753/22 and A., C-352/22). In both cases, the applicants sought recognition of the binding effect of the decision taken by a Member State on proceedings in another Member State. In QY/Bundesrepublik Deutschland, a Syrian woman was granted refugee status in Greece and applied for asylum in Germany, which granted her only subsidiary protection. In A./Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Hamm, a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin, who was granted refugee status by Italy, was subject to an extradition request from Turkey, his country of origin, in Germany. The two cases have already been widely commented (Michel; Boucheron; Pahladsingh; Fratea; Simon and Rigaux; Peers). Here, we focus on the binding effects of a decision granting refugee status by an EU Member State in another Member State. We take a three-stage approach: firstly, we focus on the past, which reveals an EU law aporia on the (non-)mutual recognition of positive refugee status decisions (1); secondly, through the analysis of the two cases and the recognition of some limited effects of decisions granting refugee status we explore the present (2); and thirdly, we look at the future. Under the paradoxical influence of the Pact on Migration and Asylum, we can imagine a possible evolution towards mutual recognition of decisions granting refugee status (3).

Continue reading »

Print this article

By Daniel Thym, FZAA Research Centre Immigration & Asylum Law, Universität Konstanz

Audio version available here

December 2024 may go down in history as a turning point of EU asylum law and policy. The newly appointed second von der Leyen Commission recognised, in a non-binding communication, that pushbacks may possibly be legal if Member States invoke a provision some experts may barely have noticed: Article 72 TFEU protects the responsibilities of the Member States to maintain law and order and to safeguard internal security.

This short provision can, in the view of the Commission, justify a derogation from the right to asylum at the EU’s Eastern borders in response to the instrumentalisation of migration by Russia and Belarus. Doing so would effectively legalise controversial legislation and administrative practices refusing entry to the territory for people expressing the desire to apply for asylum, despite the obligations enshrined in the Asylum Procedures Directive and Articles 18 and 19 of the Charter. This blogpost serves as a guide to the legal questions surrounding the communication.

Continue reading »

Print this article

By Dr Ciara Smyth, Irish Centre for Human Rights and School of Law, University of Galway, Ireland

Audio version available here

On 18 June 2024, the Irish Dáil (the lower house of parliament) adopted a motion approving the exercise by the State of its discretion under Protocol 21 to the Lisbon Treaty to opt in to all legislative measures of the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, bar two: the Screening Regulation and the Return Border Procedures Regulation. Being Schengen-related measures, Ireland could not opt in to these two regulations without opting into Schengen itself – which Ireland cannot do for reasons outlined below. Nonetheless, the Minister for Justice indicated her intention to the Dáil to ‘align’ domestic law with these regulations, saying that ‘essentially we will replicate what we cannot join’. On 31 July, the Commission adopted a number of decisions confirming the participation of Ireland in seven of the nine Pact measures.

Continue reading »

Print this article

POST 23 OF THE SERIES OF THE ODYSSEUS BLOG ON THE PACT ON MIGRATION & ASYLUM

By Professor Elspeth Guild, University of Liverpool and Vasiliki Apatzidou, Queen Mary University of London

Audio version available here

EU law in the field of asylum and protection of refugees has undergone dramatic changes in the first quarter of 2024. The legislator has agreed a new set of EU instruments which cover all areas from arrival on the territory to reception, treatment of claims, rights of those in need of international protection and expulsion of those determined not to need it. Collectively, this set of new instruments constitutes the 3rd phase of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) replacing the 2nd phase instruments adopted in 2013. Moving towards the implementation phase, EU States must ensure that their practices are consistent with human rights standards. This issue is the subject of a recent report by the Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies. We will not repeat its contents here. Our objective is to offer a concise yet insightful examination of four key areas in the new CEAS instruments which may have human rights implications: access to the territory, access to a fair procedure, detention and reception conditions including family unity. The aim is to provide a broad understanding of these areas highlighting overarching human rights concerns.

Continue reading »

Print this article

POST 22 OF THE SERIES OF THE ODYSSEUS BLOG ON THE PACT ON MIGRATION & ASYLUM

By Boldizsár Nagy, Professor Emeritus at the Department of International Relations, Central European University

Audio version available here

Long gestation, piecemeal changes

It took almost eight years (2016-2024) to adopt the text of the Qualification regulation (Regulation (EU) 2024/1347 of 14 May 2024). Its first version, in the form of a directive – emerging from scratch – needed five years (1999-2004), the second variant – still a directive – only two (2009-11).

Was the long gestation justified by a thoroughgoing renewal? Certainly not: the 2024 regulation does not introduce conceptual novelties. Transfer of protection to another Member State or intra-EU asylum seeking are not touched upon. Incremental changes were introduced. This blogpost reviews and evaluates the most important ones.

The regulation aims at harmonisation, which is ensuring that Member States apply common criteria for the identification of persons in need of protection, and grant and enforce a common set of rights for these beneficiaries. The higher degree of legal certainty and transparency ought to lead to equal treatment across the EU and a decrease of secondary movements between Member States. The form of regulation serves these goals better than a directive, leaving room for more variance among Member States.

The most important incremental changes are clustered into three blocks: rules favourable for those seeking protection, changes increasing state control (reducing chances to enjoy protection) and mixed impact novelties. The overall assessment shows that – unlike in case of many building blocks of the New Pact – the balance of the QR may be positive.

Continue reading »