C.J.U.E., 28 octobre 2021, ASGI e.a., C-462/20, EU:C:2021:894 – Les contours des clauses d’égalité de traitement entre ressortissants de pays tiers et nationaux au départ de l’arrêt ASGI e.a. de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne.

L’arrêt ASGI e.a. de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne contribue à sa jurisprudence sur l’étendue des clauses d’égalité de traitement dans les directives européennes qui régissent les différents statuts juridiques des ressortissants de pays tiers. Il s’agit de la première affaire dans laquelle la Cour interprète les clauses d’égalité dans l’accès aux biens et aux services offerts au public. L’arrêt fournit une occasion de revenir sur cette jurisprudence et de la replacer dans le contexte des questions préjudicielles déjà posées à la Cour dans cette matière.

CJEU, judgement of 24 november 2020, joined cases RNNS and KA (Joined cases C-225/19 and C-226/19), EU:C:2020:951 – No objection without substantiation? The visa applicant’s right to an effective remedy in the case of consultation procedures.

With the ruling RNNS and KA (C-225/19 and C-226/19), the CJEU deals with the prior consultation procedure in the context of visa application whereby a Member State can object to the issuing of a Schengen visa by another Member States. On the one hand, the Court strengthens the procedural safeguards surrounding the decision of refusal, by clarifying (and expanding) the scope of the duty to state reasons for the decision of refusal. On the other hand, it complexifies the scope of the right to an effective remedy (and of appeal procedures) by judging that the domestic Court that adopted the final decision on the visa cannot review the merits of the objection of the other Member State.

European Court of Human Rights [GC], decision on Admissibility of 5 may 2020, M.N. and others v. Belgium, appl. no 3599/18 – Humanitarian visa: Does the suspended step of the stork become a hunting permit?

The European Court of Human Rights declared the case M.N. and others v. Belgium inadmissible by excluding that Belgium exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction over a family of Syrians requesting humanitarian visas from the Belgian embassy in Beirut. With its assessment as to jurisdiction, the Court insists upon keeping the status quo of access to asylum procedures.

CJEU, judgment of 2 april 2020, Joined cases C-715/17, C-718/17 and C-719/17, ECLI:EU:C:2020:257 – Rebel rebel, how could they know? The boundless imagination of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic in opposing the relocation mechanism.

In the case Commission v. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, the Court of Justice of the EU, upholding the actions for failure to fulfill obligations brought by the European Commission, ruled that the defendant States breached EU law by failing to comply with the relocation decisions adopted in 2015 by the Council. The Court rejects the States’ argumentation as to the need to safeguard their national order and security, adduced as justification for not relocating asylum seekers, and confirms that solidarity is a legally binding obligation. It also does not accept the alleged existence of malfunctioning and flaws of the relocation mechanism as a valid reason not to cooperate and show solidarity: it is exactly when obstacles and difficulties arise that solidarity and a sincere, genuine spirit of cooperation are most needed.

General Court (European Union), judgement of 27 november 2019, Izuzquiza and Semsrott v. frontex, T-31/18, EU:T:2019:815 – Sailing through transparent waters? A comparison between cases concerning public access to information related to Search and Rescue operations in the Mediterranean.

With the ruling Izuzquiza and Semsrott v. Frontex (T-31/18), the General Court dismisses the action for annulment of a decision of Frontex concerning the refusal to access information related to naval operations in the Mediterranean brought by EU citizens. The General Court power to review the legality of Frontex’ decision is limited to the assessment of the credibility of Frontex explanation. The Agency enjoys great discretion in using the exception of the protection of European public security to justify non-disclosure of such information, but what are the limits of EU transparency legislation?

CJEU (grand chamber), Judgment of 29 july 2019, Torubarov, C-556/17, EU:C:2019:626 – Rule of law concerns regarding systems of judicial review in asylum cases: on the binding effect of judicial decision and the fundamental right to an effective remedy.

With the Torubarov ruling, the CJEU clarifies that, in asylum procedures, the mechanism of judicial review of unlawful decisions on international protection which consist of referral back to the administrative authority, in cases where the authority do not comply with the judicial decision, can deprive applicants of their right to an effective remedy. Having Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32 read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter direct effect, the national Court must substitute its own decision from the one of the administrative authorities, disapplying as necessary the national law that would prohibit it from proceeding in that way, thus granting protection.

CJEU, 13 December 2018, Touring Tours und Travel & Sociedad de Transportes, C‑412/17 and C-474/17 – Preserving and strengthening Schengen or circumventing the prohibition of border checks at the internal borders? The case of outsourced checks on persons performed by carriers.

In Touring Tours und Travel and Sociedad de Transportes of 13 December 2018 (joint cases C-412/17 and C-474/17), the Court of Justice rules on the prohibition of internal border controls within the Schengen Area. In line with its previous case-law, the Court addresses the issue of a national obligation imposing on coach travel operators the task of checking passengers’ passports and residence permits on routes crossing internal borders as a “measure having an effect equivalent to border checks”.

CJEU, 13 November 2018, X & X, C-47/17 and C-48/17 – Rapid processing of the asylum application “in the spirit of sincere cooperation”: the case of failing to reply in a timely manner to a re-examination request in take back and take charge procedures

With the ruling X and X of 13 November 2018 (joint cases C-47/17 and C-48/17), the Court of Justice of the European Union established that in case of a failure to reply to a re-examination request within the prescribed period of two weeks in Dublin take back or take charge procedures, the requesting Member State becomes responsible for the examination of the asylum application. The Court of Justice contributes to the interpretation of the Dublin system implementation, stressing that the rules and procedures underlying the allocation of responsibility for the asylum claim should be in compliance with the objective of facilitating a swift examination of applications.

ECJ, 13 September 2018, Ahmed, C-369/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:713. Exclusion from subsidiary protection status must be preceded by a full investigation of all the circumstances of the individual case: one step further in the direction of a single international protection status.

With the judgment of 13 September 2018 (C-368/17), the Court of Justice of the European Union established that the national authority ruling on the application for subsidiary protection must assess the seriousness of the crime that could result in a person being excluded from the benefit of subsidiary protection. This assessment shall consist of a full investigation into the circumstances of the individual case in question and cannot be taken automatically. By applying by analogy its own case-law on exclusion from refugee status to this subsidiary protection case, the Court has contributed to further aligning refugee and subsidiary protection in the direction of a single international protection status.