Tell me what you see and I’ll tell you if you’re gay: Analysing the Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C-473/16, F v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal

By Nuno Ferreira (Professor of Law, University of Sussex) and Denise Venturi (PhD student, Scuola Sant Anna, Pisa)*

Hungary in the spotlight again

Hungary has been in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons for quite a while. From legislation targeting ‘foreign-operating universities’ to border walls to keep refugees from entering Hungarian territory, the populist right-wing government of Viktor Orban has been sparking outrage in many sectors of Hungarian society, and the European institutions. The most recent reason for alarm again relates to migration and refugees, an area of widespread criticism of Hungarian authorities. Building on extremely hostile policies towards refugees that have been admonished by both the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Hungarian authorities now intend to resort to highly dubious means to assess the applications  of individuals claiming asylum on grounds related to their sexual orientation. It was already public knowledge that this category of claimants was subjected to poor treatment by the Hungarian authorities, but recent events suggest that the authorities have reached  a new low.

The most recent incident came to the public knowledge through a reference for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU by the Hungarian Administrative and Labour Court Szeged on 29 August 2016 in the Case C‑473/16, F v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal (the ‘F case’). The case concerns a Nigerian national who had submitted an application for international protection in Hungary based on his sexual orientation, and dealt with the use of projective personality tests and other means for ‘proving’ sexuality. The Hungarian domestic court posed two questions to the CJEU, essentially asking whether the application of Article 4 of the ‘qualification Directive’ on the definition of refugee status (Council Directive 2004/83/EC), in the light of the right to dignity in Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (EU Charter), precludes forensic psychologists’ expert opinions based on projective personality tests from being used in asylum adjudication relating to LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex) claimants. Should that possibility be precluded, the referring Court then asks whether the asylum authorities are prevented from examining by expert methods the truthfulness of these claims.

The questions thus refer to the interpretation of particular provisions of Council Directive 2004/83/EC. Yet, the material facts under analysis in the case referred to the CJEU occurred in April 2015, so (as the national court acknowledged) the law that applies to the facts and that needs to be interpreted in this case is the successor to Council Directive 2004/83/EC – Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011 (the recast Qualification Directive) – which Member States had to apply by 21 December 2013. (Note that this recast Directive could be replaced by a Regulation in future, as discussed here).

Following the hearing on 13 July 2017, Advocate General Wahl delivered his Opinion on 5 October 2017. The focus of our analysis will be on this Opinion, but first it is important to recall the case law the CJEU has already produced on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) claims of asylum. Indeed, this is the third case the CJEU has dealt with on SOGI-related asylum claims, and we expect this third case to better reflect international standards than the previous two, particularly in the light of the EU Charter and UNHCR Guideline No. 9.

Third time lucky?

The CJEU dealt with Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) asylum claims for the first time in the joined cases C-199/12 to C-201/12, X, Y and Z v. Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel. Despite some shortcomings,  this decision expressly recognised that persecution on the basis of sexual orientation can give rise to refugee status under the ‘particular social group’ ground of the 1951 Refugee Convention (which is reproduced in the qualification Directive). It was however one year after X, Y and Z that the CJEU was called to provide guidance on evidentiary standards in SOGI asylum claims in another case concerning three gay men seeking asylum on the basis of their sexual orientation, who were not deemed credible (Joined Cases C-148/13 to C-150/13, A, B and C v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, 2 December 2014, discussed here). The CJEU was asked whether the Charter, in particular Articles 3 (right to the integrity of the person) and 7 (respect for private and family life), as well as Article 4 recast Qualification Directive, which sets out some general rules for assessing asylum claims, posed certain limits on national authorities when verifying an asylum seeker’s sexual orientation.

This judgment is important as it establishes some core principles on credibility and evidence assessment; however, the Court could have offered more positive guidance in that regard. At the outset, the CJEU found that although the applicants’ mere declarations are not sufficient per se to establish their sexual orientation, authorities are bound by certain limits when assessing a SOGI asylum application. Notably, such assessment must be conducted on an individual basis and must not be based merely on stereotypes, which is a mistake too often committed by decision-makers in SOGI cases. Nonetheless, the CJEU did not completely overrule the use of stereotyped notions, but considered them a useful element in the overall assessment. As for evidence, the Court precluded the recourse to detailed questions on sexual practices and to ‘tests’ to establish applicants’ sexual orientation in light of Articles 1 (human dignity) and 7 of the EU Charter. It also banned the production in evidence of films showing the applicant’s engagement in same-sex activities. Finally, the CJEU also affirmed that late disclosure of an applicant’s sexual orientation as the main reason for the asylum claim, does not per se impinge on the applicant’s credibility.

In a nutshell, the Court gave a ‘black list’ of what authorities cannot do, but it did not provide any clear guidelines of what, they should do to assess SOGI asylum claims. Notably, the Court made it clear that there is no room for evidence that, by its nature, infringes human dignity and which does not have any probative value. This prohibition, the Court argued, cannot be circumvented even if it is the applicant’s choice to submit such evidence, as this would incite other applicants to do the same, creating a de facto requirement. While the Court’s judgement in X, Y and Z fully establishes the possibility of recognising SOGI applicants as refugees, the Court’s findings in A, B and C constitute the backdrop against which the F case will ultimately be decided.

‘Tell me what do you see… is it gay enough?’

The F case has put back on the CJEU’s agenda the evidentiary standards to be applied in SOGI asylum cases. Several contentious practices have been criticised throughout the years in this context, from the use of stereotyped questioning to authorities resorting to practices of no medical or psychological value such as phallometry, whereby reactions of gay male asylum claimants to watching pornography were supposed to indicate their sexual preferences. Despite such practices having been highly criticised both by the UNHCR and NGOs, the F case makes it clear that they persist in different ways.

The precise tests in question in this case are the ‘Draw-a-Person-in-the-Rain’ test, Rorschach test and Szondi test. Such projective, drawing tests attempt to elicit information that ‘patients’ may struggle or prefer not to verbalise otherwise, helping psychologists to form an opinion about individuals’ personality, emotional well-being and mental health. These tools are generally contentious, even if they go on being used by psychologists routinely in most countries. Their use to determine one’s sexuality is fundamentally abhorrent, thus simply not considered by the relevant literature or reputable professionals.

AG Wahl recognises how scientifically discredited such tests are in relation to sexual orientation matters, citing an American Psychological Association 2009 report. The question of whether one is gay or not is, itself, poorly framed, as one’s sexual orientation can lie somewhere along a complex continuum and change over time. Attempts to determine one’s sexuality objectively have invariably been held to be ‘junk science’, for relying on baseless stereotypes. As Weber has rightly stated in the context of the recent debates around using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to determine one’s sexuality on the basis of one’s face, such pseudo-scientific efforts are attempts to impose coherence on individuals and fail to recognise that the ‘homosexual’ and the ‘heterosexual’ are historically constructed figures. Crucially, Weber worries that such type of AI ‘junk science’ will be used in the West in the context of SOGI asylum.

The tests in question in the F case assume that individuals with a particular sexual orientation have certain personality traits, which not only is patently false, but also runs against the prohibition on stereotypical decision-making established by A, B and C. At the oral hearing in this case, the Hungarian authorities tried to justify the use of these tests with the A, B and C judgment. The argument ran as follows: as the judgment precluded questions about claimants’ sexual orientation, the authorities had to resort to tests. The problem with this assertion is that it is based on a false premise: the judgment in A, B and C did not prevent authorities from asking any questions about claimants’ sexual orientation, but simply precluded certain questions and practices that clearly breach the dignity of the individual.

Although both the Commission and the Hungarian authorities suggested in the oral hearing that these tests should be allowed because they only constitute an element of the overall assessment of the asylum claim and may lead to the confirmation of the credibility of the applicant, the exact opposite happened in this case. Indeed, the test was used by the Hungarian authorities to discredit the applicant’s account and deny him international protection (par. 10-11 of the Opinion). In other words, a ‘junk science’ approach to decision-making was used to prevent the claimant from being recognised as refugee. Unfortunately, AG Wahl’s Opinion fell far short from precluding such tests.

The Advocate General’s Opinion

In his Opinion, AG Wahl rightly frames this case as one that is very clearly about using psychologists’ expert opinions in assessing the credibility of claimants. The provision at the centre of this debate – as framed by the referring questions – is Article 4(5) of the recast Qualification Directive, which discharges applicants from the need to prove their asylum claims through documentary or other evidence when a range of conditions is fulfilled, including the applicants having made a genuine effort to substantiate their claims, having offered a satisfactory explanation for the lack of further evidence, and having provided an overall credible account. Based on this provision, the applicant used the oral hearing to highlight that there was no need for any further tests in his case, because there were no inconsistencies. The Hungarian authorities counter-argued that there were contradictions in the applicant’s statement (without specifying exactly which contradictions), so it was necessary to probe its veracity.

Another EU law instrument turns out to play a more important role in this Opinion, namely Directive 2013/32/EU (the recast Asylum Procedures Directive). Indeed, the Qualification Directive establishes the general rules to follow in terms of evidentiary standards in asylum cases, in particular Article 4, but it is Article 10(3) of the Asylum Procedures Directive that determines that Member States’ asylum authorities should reach individual, objective and impartial decisions, and that they have the possibility to seek expert advice to assist in their decision-making. On this basis, AG Wahl proceeds by considering the benefits of involving psychologists in the adjudication process (para. 33-34), but is also very clear about the impossibility of a psychologist determining an applicant’s sexual orientation based on personality tests (par. 36). Nonetheless, AG Wahl goes on to analyse under which circumstances such tests can nevertheless be admitted, thus effectively accepting them.

AG Wahl tries to soften the blow of admitting the tests in question by stating that consent is required, and that the tests need to be carried out in a way that is compatible with the rights to dignity and to respect for private and family life (Articles 1 and 7 of the EU Charter and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights). Although AG Wahl expressly acknowledges the difficulties in withholding consent in the context of an asylum claim, he does not seem to find it problematic that – in his own words and in a likely violation of the applicant’s rights under EU law – the ‘applicant’s refusal [to consent to the tests] may have certain consequences that the applicant himself has to bear’ (par. 45). In other words, refusing a test with no probative value that could violate applicants’ rights may lead to the refusal of their asylum claim – a highly disproportional and unfair outcome, we would argue.

The Opinion goes on to further qualify the admissibility of such tests by questioning the probative value of examinations based on dubious science or used in the wrong context (par. 48). And yet, AG Wahl also offers domestic courts a wide margin of appreciation in this regard, by stating that it is not for the CJEU to assess such tests. Having seen how the tests in question had been used in relation to a gay male applicant to deny him asylum, it is patently unwise to offer domestic authorities such leeway in asylum cases relating to sexual orientation. The fact that AG Wahl refers to the right to an effective remedy (Article 47 of the EU Charter) and to the freedom of domestic courts to depart from the ‘findings of the expert’ (par. 50) may be an implicit suggestion that the domestic court in this case should differ from the experts’ opinions and feel free to grant asylum to the applicant. Yet, that is clearly insufficient to appease the legitimate concerns of asylum seekers in similar situations, since they will be at the mercy of (administrative and judicial) authorities who may happily offer probative value to ‘junk science’ detrimental to their asylum claims.

AG Wahl’s Opinion accepting in principle the use of projective personality tests in cases involving asylum claims on the basis of sexual orientation is deeply disconcerting. On the one hand, he clearly doubts the usefulness or appropriateness of such tests (even referring to Principle 18 of the Yogyakarta Principles protecting individuals from medical abuses based on sexual orientation or gender identity), and he alerts domestic courts to the possibility of disregarding them even when they are carried out. On the other hand, he does recommend that such tests should be allowed (even if with a range of supposedly helpful caveats), thus abandoning claimants to the mercy of potentially unsympathetic domestic authorities. Equally disconcerting is the fact that nowhere in the AG’s Opinion is there a reference to the principle of the benefit of the doubt: although it may not be strictly necessary to refer to this principle in this context, its absence is striking for leaving out of the equation an essential element of the evidentiary standards in refugee law (para. 203-204 of the UNHCR Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status). It is submitted that the focus of the Opinion should have been on the line of questioning that should have been used, such as per UNHCR Guideline No. 9.

he Opinion in this case could have much more simply asserted, as AG Sharpston did in her Opinion in A, B and C (largely followed by the CJEU), that ‘medical [or psychological, we would add] tests cannot be used for the purpose of establishing an applicant’s credibility, as they infringe Articles 3 and 7 of the Charter’ (par. 61), and that applicants’ consent is both essentially irrelevant and questionable (par. 67). Instead, AG Wahl offers poor guidance to the CJEU.

‘Projecting’ this Opinion onto the CJEU’s Judgment

In the F case, the CJEU will be called upon to interpret EU law with regard to the evidentiary assessment of SOGI asylum cases in a more targeted way than it did in A, B and C. Predicting a Court’s verdict is something one should try to avoid; however, the relevance of the issues at stake in the F case allows us to contemplate some potential scenarios. First, the CJEU has the option to build on and expand its approach in A, B and C and therefore construe its whole reasoning on the basis of respect for the EU Charter, particularly Article 1. In this sense, psychological personality tests to evaluate sexual orientation would be precluded, as the prohibition set forth by the CJEU in A, B and C is arguably not limited to physical examination, but extends more generally to all ‘“tests” with a view to establishing […] homosexuality’.

Secondly, should the CJEU follow the AG’s opinion, it would need to carefully construe how it is possible to ensure that psychologists’ expert opinions are truly limited to an evaluation on the general credibility, and not just a loophole to pave the way to unreliable psychological assessments of sexual orientation.

Further, the Court should make sure that any such expert opinions on credibility are not used as ‘lie detectors’ based on preconceived assumptions – otherwise we could well resort to Harry Potter’s veritaserum for all asylum claims. Moreover, the CJEU would need to explain how genuine consent can be sought, since the option of taking tests that are not compulsory but seen as useful for credibility assessment would put pressure on other applicants to take the tests, thus undermining the validity of any consent obtained.

Finally, should the CJEU agree with the use of projective personality tests in SOGI asylum claims, it would compromise the progressive steps previously taken in this area – a slippery slope we strongly hope the Court will not enter. The CJEU has already spelled out, in A, B and C, some of the crucial elements for deciding the present case; now, it is a matter of entrenching those elements, so as not to leave room for ambiguity or for the use of evidentiary means that are in breach of asylum seekers’ dignity and fundamental rights.

The authors wish to thank the useful comments provided by Dr Carmelo Danisi and Dr Moira Dustin on previous drafts of this text.

*Reblogged with permission from the EUMigrationlaw blog

Barnard & Peers: chapter 9, chapter 26

JHA4: chapter I:5

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

The new EU law on refugees takes shape: More Harmonisation but Less Protection?

Professor Steve Peers

At the heart of the contested issue of asylum in the EU – including the current perceived ‘refugee/migrant crisis’ – is the definition of who is a ‘refugee’, or is at least entitled instead to a form of ‘subsidiary protection’ for those fleeing threats of ‘serious harm’. Refugees and people with subsidiary protection receive more legal protection and status than many other non-EU citizens, in particular irregular migrants.

Unsurprisingly then, the proposed revision of the EU legislation on this issue forms part of the broader overhaul of all EU asylum laws proposed in 2016, as a response to the perceived crisis. Recently the EU governments agreed their position on the proposal, which must now be negotiated with the European Parliament (its negotiating position is set out here).

Most of the other 2016 proposals are still under negotiation (I’ll discuss them as part of an update of recent EU immigration and asylum developments, coming soon). But since the ‘qualification’ rules are a cornerstone of EU asylum law, the latest development calls for a more in-depth analysis. In particular, will the new law meet the Commission’s objectives for dealing with the ‘crisis’: more harmonisation, an overall reduction in protection standards, and deterrents for ‘secondary’ movements between Member States?

The proposal aims to implement the UN Refugee Convention (which the EU refers to as the ‘Geneva Convention’) in more detail, as regards both the definition of ‘refugee’ and the rights which refugees receive. It also defines ‘subsidiary protection’ and sets out the rights which subsidiary protection beneficiaries are entitled to.

It will replace the existing EU law on the subject. As part of the ‘first phase’ of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), an initial Qualification Directive was adopted in 2004. A ‘second phase’ Qualification Directive replaced it in 2011. (I analysed the negotiation of the latter Directive here; there’s also a lengthy analysis of it by Madeline Garlick and Violeta Moreno Lax in EU Immigration and Asylum Law: Text and Commentary). The UK and Ireland opted in to (and are still bound by) the first phase Directive, but not the second phase Directive or the 2016 proposal; Denmark is not bound by any of them. After Brexit, UK citizens will be able to apply for asylum in the EU.

Basic legal framework

To give effect to the objective of further harmonisation, the 2016 proposal will replace the 2011 Directive with a Regulation, with the consequence that EU law on this subject will be directly applicable, rather than applying through the medium of national legislation giving effect to a Directive. To the same end, the Regulation will also eliminate Member States’ power in the current law to set more favourable standards as long as they are compatible with the Directive – although this power has already been curtailed by the ECJ’s judgments in B and D and M’Bodj (the latter ruling is discussed here). The new Regulation will reflect that case law, by noting that Member States are free to retain or establish a separate status of humanitarian protection, as long as there is no confusion with the (EU harmonised) notions of refugee or subsidiary protection status.

This shift toward harmonisation is also manifested by a removal of most options under the Directive, with the effect of lowering standards overall, since most of the options are possibilities for Member States to offer less protection than under the standard rules. On the other hand, the Commission’s desire to have the new law play a role in immediate ‘crisis management’ would be thwarted by Member States, who want the law to apply in two years’ time – rather than the six months desired by the Commission. (Note that the EP wants it to apply even more quickly than the Commission, though).

Turning to the details of the proposal, there are four main elements to the law: common rules (applying to both refugee and subsidiary protection status); the definition of ‘refugee’; the definition of subsidiary protection; and the content of status (ie the benefits people with status receive).

Common rules

Family members of refugees and people with subsidiary protection will be given extra rights in the new law (see below), and they will be defined slightly more broadly. A ‘family member’ will now include relationships formed outside the country of refuge, not just those formed inside the country or origin. This means, for instance, that the spouse of a Syrian refugee who married him while in Turkey or Lebanon, and the children of that couple born in such countries, would now be defined as ‘family members’.

The rules on assessment of asylum applications will be extended to include refugees resettled directly from non-EU countries, assuming that a separate proposal on resettlement is agreed. It will now be mandatory, not optional, for the main burden of proof to rest upon the applicant to show why the claim for refugee or subsidiary protection status is justified; and a new clause in the preamble will reflect the ECJ’s 2014 case law (discussed here) which limits the intrusiveness of Member States’ questioning of the credibility of LGBTI asylum-seekers.  

Next, the new law will harmonise the use of an exception to the rules – and lower the standards of protection. While the Regulation will retain the notion of an application for refugee or subsidiary protection status ‘sur place’ – meaning the asylum seeker left the allegedly unsafe country of origin before it became unsafe – the exception to this rule will become mandatory. At present, this exception gives Member States an option to ‘normally’ refuse refugee status to an asylum seeker who has made a repeat application for asylum and created her own risk of persecution due to her activities after leaving the country of origin. The Commission proposal would extend this to subsidiary protection applications, and Member States want to go further – extending the (now mandatory) exception to initial applications as well, subject to a new threshold (the asylum-seeker’s activities were for the ‘sole or main purpose’ of making a claim for protection). For its part, the EP would keep the exception optional and limited to repeat applications, while also adding a safeguard for those asylum-seekers who (for example) ‘come out’ after arriving in the EU, having been previously afraid to express their sexuality.

Similarly, the option to refuse claims because the asylum seeker had an ‘internal flight alternative’ – ie he could have fled to a safe part of the country of origin, like a supposed ‘safe zone’ in Syria – would become mandatory. (The possibility of rejecting a claim because an asylum seeker would arguably have been safe in a different country is the subject of other proposals). The proposal makes this subject to safeguards: more elaborate explanation of the substance of the idea; applying the main rules on qualification first; shifting the burden of proof to the authorities; and not requiring the asylum seeker to show that he exhausted all possibilities to move within the country of origin. However, the Member States’ position would drop the latter two safeguards. For its part, the EP would keep this clause optional, drop the ‘sequencing’ rule, but add further safeguards.

Definition of ‘refugee’

The EU is bound by the Treaties to follow the UN Refugee Convention, so the proposed law retains the basic idea from that Convention that a ‘refugee’ is someone persecuted because of their race, religion, political opinion, nationality or particular social group, elaborating upon each of these concepts. The Commission proposal would clarify in the preamble that LGBT people can form part of a ‘particular social group’ (confirming ECJ case law), while the main text would confirm case law that asylum seekers can’t be expected to hide (for instance) their sexuality or religion in their countries of origin. The proposal would also tighten the definition of ‘particular social group’ in that asylum-seekers would have to show in all Member States that they both perceived themselves as part of a distinct group and were perceived as different by the rest of society. This would quash the discretion that Member States now have to set higher standards, so that only one of those elements is necessary to prove refugee status. Member States agree with this latter change, but the EP is resisting it.

As for exclusion from refugee status, where the current Directive elaborates a little on the relevant provisions of the Refugee Convention, the new Regulation would enshrine the basic elements of ECJ case law on the special status of some Palestinians (Bolbol and El Kott), and on the exclusion of persons strongly linked to terrorism (B and D; the preamble Member States’ version also takes account of the recent ECJ judgment in Lounani on the exclusion of foreign fighters, discussed here).

In contrast, the proposals on withdrawal of refugee status would tighten the existing law, making withdrawal mandatory in more cases and clarifying the link with similar provisions in the rest of the law (on that point, see the ECJ’s T judgment, discussed here). There would be a grace period to apply for another legal status and a mandatory review of status at least the first time a refugee’s residence permit came up for renewal. However, Member States reject the latter ideas (and the EP also rejects the review clause).

Definition of subsidiary protection

The core definition of subsidiary protection (a threat of serious harm deriving from the death penalty, torture or similar treatment, or facing a specified threat from armed conflict) would not be affected by the 2016 proposal – although the preamble would entrench the relevant ECJ case law (Elgafaji and Diakité). However, the rules on exclusion from and withdrawal of subsidiary protection status would be amended to (for the most part) match the parallel changes related to refugee status; and the Council and EP take a comparable view of these proposals. On one distinct point – withdrawing subsidiary protection status due to less serious crimes – the Member States reject the Commission’s proposal to make this ground mandatory, preferring to leave it optional for Member States.

Content of status

The 2016 proposal would make a number of interesting changes in this area. First of all, the Commission’s ambitious attempt to overturn the ECJ judgment in T, and make all benefits for refugees and persons with subsidiary protection contingent upon getting a residence permit, has been rejected by Member States and the EP.

Secondly, an amendment in the opposite direction: the family members of refugees or persons with subsidiary protection who don’t qualify themselves for international protection would be entitled to a residence permit. This would replace an ambiguous reference in the current law to preserving ‘family unity’. However, there are already special rules concerning the admission of family members of refugees set out in the EU’s family reunion Directive. So do two new sets of rules conflict? No, because a clause in the preamble to the agreed Qualification Regulation says that the family reunion Directive applies in the event of overlap (ie if the family member is ‘within the scope’ of the Directive).

Usually, the two laws will not overlap, for several reasons. A) the family reunion Directive does not apply to family reunion with sponsors with subsidiary protection, at least if that protection was granted on the basis of national or international law (sponsors with subsidiary protection on the basis of EU law are not expressly excluded, however). B) that Directive in principle only applies to family members who are outside the territory, whereas the Regulation conversely will only apply to family members who are present on the territory. However, Member States have an option to apply the Directive where family members are already present; only in that case would there be an overlap, decided in favour of the Directive where the family members are within the scope of it.

Thirdly, the Commission aimed for more harmonisation of the rules on renewal of residence permits, although the Member States prefer to leave themselves with more flexibility. It will be expressly mandatory to use the EU’s standard residence permit format for refugees and others covered by the Regulation though.

Fourthly, there will also be more harmonisation of the rules related to travel documents, which are issued by Member States to beneficiaries of international protection in place of passports, given that it would probably be unsafe for them to contact officials from their country of origin. They will be valid for at least one year and will be expressly subject to the EU’s passport security rules.

Fifthly, the provisions on movement within the territory and benefits would be redrafted, to take account of the ECJ case law in Alo and Osso (discussed here), which permits a link between limiting movements and the grant of benefits in some cases.

Sixthly, the rules on access to employment are strengthened by an obligation to ensure equal treatment as regards work-related matters, including taking account of experience in an occupation obtained outside the country of refuge.

Finally, there are further changes designed to entrench control over beneficiaries of international protection: Member States may make integration measures compulsory, and any unauthorised movement between Member States can be punished by ‘resetting the clock’ on acquisition of long-term residence status under the relevant EU law. Both Member States and the EP aim to soften these proposals by ensuring that integration courses are accessible and by allowing Member States to make exceptions from the changes to the long-term residence rule.

Assessment

What impact will the agreed proposal (still subject to further negotiation) have on the perceived ‘refugee crisis’? Will it meet the objectives of deterring protection-related migration as well as secondary movements, while harmonising national law further?

Certainly there are significant steps towards harmonisation: the use of a Regulation; the removal of the right to set more favourable standards; the disappearance of many options; and the integration of relevant ECJ case law into the legislative text (making it more visible for national authorities, courts, and legal advisers). However, the European Parliament is still battling to keep some key rules optional, rather than mandatory.

This goes to the second point: will the new Regulation reduce standards as much as the Commission had hoped? Here, the result is a mixed bag: some of the changes in the definition of refugee will have that effect – unless the European Parliament successfully resists them. However, the idea of mandatory reviews of status has been dropped.

As for sanctioning secondary movements, the reset of the clock as regards obtaining long-term residence status might have some impact, although the main thrust of the planned sanctions against secondary movement are found in separate proposals for amendment of other asylum laws.

The deferral (at least by Member States) of the impact of the new law for two years means that the new law would (if this delay is accepted) have no immediate impact on the current perceived crisis. However, the changes it would make to the definition of refugee status may lead to fewer refugees being recognised – although again this is subject to the success or failure of the EP’s attempts to resist such changes. In any event, since many of the plans to deter both the initial and secondary movement of people arguably needing international protection appear in other 2016 proposals (on reception conditions, the Dublin system and procedural rules), the overall assessment of whether the EU is moving in a dramatically more restrictive direction as regards asylum law depends more upon what happens with those proposals over the months to come.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

JHA4: chapter I:5

Photo credit: Pinterest

*Disclaimer: I was an independent adviser for a consultancy advising the European Commission on the implementation of and possible amendment of the current Directive.

The Dublin system: the ECJ Squares the Circle Between Mutual Trust and Human Rights Protection

By Cecilia Rizcallah, Research Fellow at the Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research affiliated to the Centre of Interdisciplinary Research in Constitutional Law of Saint-Louis University (USL-B) and the Centre of European Law of the Free University Brussels (ULB). The author wishes to thank the Professors E. Bribosia and S. Van Drooghenbroeck for their valuable advice.

Introduction

On Thursday February 16th, the ECJ handed down a seminal judgment in the case of C.K. and others, C-578/16 PPU. This ruling was rendered on a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of Slovenia asking, in substance, whether the risk faced by an asylum seeker of being a victim of inhuman and degrading treatment because of his/her individual situation, shall prevent his/her transfer to another Member State to consider his/her asylum claim on the basis of the Dublin system.

The Dublin System: Cooperation between Member States based on Mutual Trust

The Dublin system, initiated by a Convention signed in 1990 in the city whose name it bears, allocates responsibility for examining asylum applications lodged by third country nationals (TCNs) in the EU, in such a manner that, in principle, only one State has the task of examining each asylum request lodged on the European Union’s territory.  Pursuing harmonisation of Member states’ asylum policies, the Treaty of Amsterdam introduced the competence of the European Community (Article 63 EC; now Article 78 TFEU) to adopt additional measures in order to achieve a Common European Asylum System (CEAS). On that basis, the Dublin Convention was replaced by the “Dublin II” Regulation (Regulation n°343/2003) and then the “Dublin III” Regulation (Regulation 604/2013). Also, a number of directives were adopted in order to set up minimum standards on the qualification and status of refugees and persons with subsidiarity protection (Directive 2011/95/UE), on asylum procedures (currently Directive 2013/32/UE) and on reception conditions for asylum-seekers (currently Directive 2013/33/UE).

The Dublin system, which constitutes a fundamental part of the CEAS, has as its main goals to (i) ensure the access of TCNs to the asylum application procedure and to (ii) rationalise the treatment of asylum applications by avoiding forum shopping and the existence of multiple applications. It therefore establishes a set of criteria which determine which Member State is, in a particular situation, responsible for examining the application of an asylum-seeker. The general rule is that (in effect) the State of first entry into the European Union is the responsible Member State, but there are several exceptions. If another Member State is approached, that state can either, on the basis of the Dublin system, automatically transfer the asylum seeker lodging the application to the responsible state, but it can also – and it has a sovereign right to – decide to examine the application itself as it so wish (Article 17, Dublin III Regulation: the “sovereignty-clause”).

It is important to note that the Dublin system is underpinned by the fundamental idea of equivalence of Member States’ asylum systems, presuming, therefore, that asylum-seekers would not benefit from any advantage by having their application examined in a specific country.

Summary of Previous Case Law of the ECJ: Preserving Effectiveness of EU Cooperation, even at the Expense of Fundamental Rights

The automaticity of the transfer of asylum-seekers between Member States, founded on the premise of equivalence, quickly appeared problematic in terms of protection of asylum-seekers’ fundamental rights. Notably due to their geographic situation, some Member States were faced with a high number of arrivals that put their asylum-seekers’ reception infrastructures under pressure, and resulted in degradation of their national asylum systems.

It did not take long before challenges against transfer decisions were being introduced, because of the risks faced by asylum-seekers regarding their fundamental rights in the State which the Dublin system made responsible for examining their applications. One of the first landmark rulings on this issue was handed down by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in which Belgium was held liable for breaching the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by having transferred an asylum seeker back to Greece on the basis of the Dublin system, while this country, in its examination of asylum applications, was not fulfilling the obligations under the ECHR. The ECtHR noted, in the case of M.S.S c. Belgium and Greece (application n° 30696/09), that Belgium, being aware of, or having a duty to be aware of the poor detention and reception conditions of asylum-seekers in Greece, should have relied upon the “sovereignty-clause” of the Dublin II Regulation, to refrain from transferring this individual to a country where he faced a real risk of becoming a victim of inhuman and degrading treatment in accordance with Article 3 ECHR.

Less than a year later, the ECJ addressed the same issue with the additional difficulty of having the duty to safeguard the Dublin system’s effet utile. In the famous N.S. case (C-411/10), the Court was indeed asked whether “a State which should transfer the asylum seeker [to the responsible Member State according to the Dublin regulation] is obliged to assess the compliance, by that Member State, with the fundamental rights of the European Union”.  In addressing this challenge, the ECJ relied - for the first time in the field of asylum - upon the principle of mutual trust between Member States, founded on the presumption that “all participating States [to the Dublin system] observe fundamental rights”, to conclude that it was inconceivable that “any infringement of a fundamental right by the Member State responsible” would affect the obligations of other Member States to comply with the Dublin Regulation (§82).

To maintain the effectiveness of the Dublin Regulation despite the existence of flaws in national asylum systems, the ECJ innovated by introducing the “systemic deficiencies test”, entailing that a transfer should be prohibited “if there are substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and reception conditions for asylum applicants in the Member State responsible, resulting in inhuman and degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (corresponding to Article 3 ECHR), of asylum-seekers transferred to the territory of that Member State, the transfer would be incompatible with that provision” (§86).

To secure a clear, effective and fast method for determining the Member State responsible for dealing with an asylum application, the ECJ thus opted for a presumption of compliance by Dublin States with fundamental rights which could be rebutted in the presence of a “systemic deficiency in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions of asylum-seekers” where Member States would be compelled to prevent the transfer (§89). This presumption of fundamental rights’ respect by Member States was subsequently applied by the ECJ in other judgements (C-4/11, Puid and C-394/12, Abdullahi).  In fact, the latter judgment expressly limited both the substantive and procedural grounds on which a Dublin transfer could be challenged.

Heavily criticized, this approach was condemned in Strasbourg with the Tarakhel case (application n°29217/12), in 2014 in which the ECtHR reaffirmed and specified its MSS judgement by ruling that the Dublin system “does not exempt [national authorities] from carrying out a thorough and individualized examination of the situation of the person concerned and from suspending enforcement of the removal order should the risk of inhuman and degrading treatment be established”. 

Stonewalling, one of the ECJ’s arguments against the draft agreement on the accession of the EU to the ECHR (Opinion 2/13) was the ECHR requirement that Member States “check that another Member State has observed fundamental rights, even though EU law imposes an obligation of mutual trust between those Member States” (Opinion 2/13, §194). The Court’s “systemic deficiencies” test was consolidated in the recast of the Dublin Regulation (Regulation 604/2013, Dublin III) whose Article 3(2) states that “where it is impossible to transfer an applicant to the Member State primarily designated as responsible because there are substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants in that Member State, resulting in a risk of inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the determining Member State shall continue to examine the criteria set out in Chapter III in order to establish whether another Member State can be designated as responsible”.

A first move from this case law has recently been observed in another field of EU cooperation, namely in EU criminal law. The question asked to the ECJ was whether detention conditions incompatible with art. 4 of the Charter in a Member State issuing a EAW could allow or oblige the executing judicial authority of a requested Member State to refuse the execution of a European Arrest Warrant (EAW). Once again, the ECJ was faced with the dilemma between securing a EU mechanism based on mutual trust or taking human rights considerations seriously. In its landmark ruling in the case Aranyosi and Căldăraru (C-404/15), the ECJ considered that in the event of “systemic or generalised, or which may affect certain groups of people, or which may affect certain places of detention” deficiencies, and only if “there are substantial grounds to believe that, following the surrender of that person to the issuing Member State, he or she will run a real risk of being subject in that Member State to inhuman and degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 4” (§94), the executing authority will have to postpone the execution of the EAW.

Hence, a two-step analysis has to be carried out by the national judge who must first assess the existence of general or particular deficiencies in the detention system of the requesting state, before examining, in concreto, whether the requested person faces a real risk of being subject to inhuman and degrading treatment. It remained, however, unclear whether the exception to mutual trust provided in Aranyosi and Căldăraru was more or less protective of fundamental rights. Even though a second condition was added, the deficiency requirement seemed softened.

The ruling of the ECJ in C.K. and others: A Welcome Step Towards Reconciliation Between the Dublin system and Human Rights ?

Facts and Question referred to the ECJ

A couple with a newborn child lodged an asylum application in Slovenia whereas Croatia was, according to the Dublin criteria, responsible for examining their application. Noting the absence of systemic flaws in the Croatian asylum system but observing that the mother of the child was in a very bad state of health, the Slovene court asked the ECJ whether the reliance upon the sovereignty clause (Article 17 of Dublin III) could be mandatory for the purpose of ensuring the family an effective protection against risks of inhuman and degrading treatment. In other words, the national judge inquired whether Dublin transfers were only prohibited in case of the existence of systematic deficiencies in the responsible state, subjecting asylum-seekers to risks of violations of Article 4 of the Charter, or whether a transfer also had to be precluded when such a risk was faced due to the specific and individual situation of a particular asylum seeker.

The opinion of the Advocate General

Following the NS and Abdullahi approach, the opinion of Advocate General Tanchev argued that only systemic flaws in the responsible State could require the prevention of a Dublin transfer. Unsurprisingly, he justified his opinion on the principle of mutual trust between Member States and on the need to ensure the effectiveness of the CEAS (§51). He further acknowledged that his position did not meet ECtHR standards but stressed that the EU was not bound by it (§52). He moreover underlined that Article 17 of the Regulation constituted a “discretionary” clause which, by definition, could not be construed as imposing obligations on Member States (§ 67).

The judgment of the Court

The fifth Chamber of the ECJ - quite uncommonly - did not follow the Advocate General’s opinion. To the contrary, the ECJ stated that, besides situations where “systemic deficiencies” exist in the responsible state, any transfer of asylum-seekers shall be excluded where it gives rise to a real risk for the individual concerned to suffer inhuman or degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter.  Relying upon Article 52§3 of the Charter, the ECJ recalled that corresponding rights guaranteed both by the Charter and the ECHR should receive the same scope as those laid down by the Convention.

It then quoted Strasbourg’s recent ruling in Paposhvili v. Belgium (application n° 41738/10, § 175) according to which “illness may be covered by Article 3 [of the ECHR], where it is, or risks being, exacerbated by treatment, whether flowing from conditions of detention, expulsion or other measures, for which the authorities can be held responsible”. Consequently, despite the absence of systemic deficiencies in the Croatian reception conditions of asylum-seekers (§7), Slovenia was required to suspend the transfer due to the fact that it could result, because of the particular medical condition of the immigrant, in a real risk of serious and irremediable deterioration of her health condition (§84). The suspension should, according to the judgement, be maintained as long as that risk exists. On the basis of its ruling in Aranyosi, the Court also stressed that national authorities were required to assess the risk before transferring an individual (§76).

The Court added that if the state of health of the migrant was not expected to improve, the relevant Member State had the possibility to itself examine the asylum application on the basis of the sovereignty clause contained in Article 17§1 of the Regulation (§96). However, this provision does not, according to the ECJ, oblige a Member State to examine any application lodged with it, even when read in the light of Article 4 of the Charter.

The ECJ finally concluded that this holding “fully respected the principle of mutual trust since, far from affecting the presumption of respect of fundamental rights by Member States, it ensures that exceptional situations are duly taken into consideration by Member States” and furthermore, that “if a Member State proceeded to the transfer of an asylum-seeker in such circumstances, the resulting inhuman and degrading treatment would not be attributable, neither directly or indirectly, to the authorities of the responsible Member State, but solely to the first Member State”.

Comments

The ruling of the fifth Chamber seems to introduce a crucial change in the case law of the ECJ regarding the relationship between the principle of mutual trust and the protection of individuals against inhuman and degrading treatment. Instead of putting these two imperatives in competition, the Court seems, for the first time, to obviously acknowledge their necessary interdependence.  By considering that the principle of mutual trust would be enhanced by an effective application of Article 4 of the Charter, the ECJ finally appears to take seriously the fact that this principle is precisely founded on the respect by Member States of EU values including, above all, the principle of human dignity to which the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment is closely linked (Article 2 TEU).

It is therefore not only in case of systemic or generalised flaws in the asylum system of a responsible Member State that a transfer may be prevented. Specific and individual considerations of asylum-seekers must be taken into account in order to assess whether he or she could suffer treatment incompatible with Article 4 of the Charter because of his/her transfer. The Court moreover endorses this requirement by holding that in case of failure in addressing this risk, the first Member State will shoulder responsibility for breach of the Charter.

It should however be stressed that, while the first judgements prioritising the principle of mutual trust were delivered by the ECJ Grand Chamber, the ruling in the case at hand was handed down by a Chamber of five judges whose authority could be considered as being weaker. Nevertheless, the ruling follows the general evolution of the case law of the ECJ which already underlined several times, following the last recast of the Dublin regulation, the fact that the changes of the system were “intended to make the necessary improvements, in the light of experience, not only to the effectiveness of the Dublin system but also to the protection afforded applicants under that system” (C-63/15, Ghezelbash, §52) The latter judgment (from June 2016) had already overturned the procedural aspects of the Abdullahi judgment; the CK ruling now overturns the substantive aspects.

This valuable step in favour of asylum-seekers’ fundamental rights protection nevertheless raises a number of practical questions. One could ask first – and this question was already put forward by other commentators – whether the risk of the violation of other fundamental rights than the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment must justify an exception to the Dublin distribution of responsibilities and, thereby, to the principle of mutual trust. We think that, given the emphasis put by the Court on the exceptional character of the situation, not any breach of any fundamental rights would prevent Member States to rely upon the principle of mutual trust in order to transfer an asylum-seeker. To the contrary, only very serious risks of violation of absolute fundamental rights (Chapter I of the Charter) would in our view justify a mandatory suspension of the transfer of asylum-seekers.

Additionally, the ruling raises questions as regards the consequences of a suspension. As pointed out by the Court, a Member State would never be obliged to itself assess, on the basis of the sovereignty clause (Article 17.1 Dublin III), an asylum application which falls within the responsibility of another State. What if, because of the individual situation of the asylum seeker, the transfer should be suspended in the long term? The finding of the ECJ could then result in the existence of “refugees in orbit”, asylum-seekers who lose the certainty of having their application examined by any Member State of the Union – something which the Dublin system especially seeks to prevent and that could, in itself, constitute an inhuman and degrading treatment.

Finally, the question of the applicability of this approach to EU criminal cooperation should also be raised. The Court seemed, until its holding in the Aranyosi case, very reluctant to acknowledge any exception to the principle of mutual trust in the framework of the European Arrest Warrant (see, among others, the cases C-396/11 Radu and C-399/11, Melloni). The ruling in C.K. should however, in our opinion, be seen as applicable also in the field of criminal cooperation if such exceptional circumstances are met since the ruling especially relies upon the judgment in Aranyosi and also due to the absolute character of the prohibition laid down in art. 4 of the Charter Now the two lines of case law have been brought together, but they raise parallel questions about the long-term consequences. Indeed, the Court of Justice has already been asked to elaborate on the Aranyosi ruling, in the pending Aranyosi II case. So its ruling in that case may be equally relevant to Dublin cases.

In any case, the change of position of the ECJ seems much more in compliance both with the ECHR and, also, with the constitutional requirements of certain national legal orders. Indeed, the German Constitutional Court did not hesitate, in its judgment of 15 December 2015, to make an exception to the principle of mutual trust, as implemented by the EAW system, in order to protect the right of human dignity, which, according to this ruling, forms part of German constitutional identity.

One can henceforth wonder whether the C.K. and Aranyosi rulings generally overturn the Opinion 2/13 argument based on the principle of mutual trust opposed, among others, by the ECJ against the EU’s draft accession agreement to the ECHR… Either way, this new setting should, without a doubt, have an important impact on today’s and future’s relationships between the EU legal order, on the one hand, with the ECHR and national legal orders, on the other.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 9, chapter 26

JHA4: chapter I:5

Photo credit: Handelsblatt

Court of Justice gives judgment on Irish procedure for determining claims for Subsidiary Protection

Shauna Gillan, Tribunal Member, International Protection Appeals Tribunal*
*The author is writing in a personal capacity

Introduction

The recent ruling of the Court of Justice (CJEU) of 9 February 2017  in  the  case  of M v Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and Anor in is the fourth time that Court has given judgment on Ireland’s  unique  and  evolving  procedure  for  determining  claims  for Subsidiary  Protection.  Subsidiary  Protection  is  a European Union law status provided  for  by  the Qualification Directive (originally Directive 2004/83, now Directive 2011/95 – although Ireland, like the UK, only opted in to the former version) that is designed  to  complement  the  protection  for refugees provided  by  the  1951 Refugee Convention.

Subsidiary Protection protects those who do not fit the strict definition of a refugee, but who are nonetheless at risk of serious harm in their home country. Ireland has up to now dealt with these two types of (similar, but not identical) claims via entirely separate decision-making processes.

The litigant (‘M’), a Rwandan national, brought test case litigation on the Irish procedure on 6 January 2011. At the time, all subsidiary protection applications were determined by the Minister for Justice in an administrative procedure that carried no right of appeal. The ensuing protracted  litigation  included  two  references  to  the  CJEU  from two different  Irish  Courts;  the  most  recent, a reference from the Supreme Court, is considered in the ECJ’s recent judgment.

The Irish system has undergone significant changes over the years during which M’s case has been in train, rendering the Court’s findings somewhat moot; however the case speaks to a fundamental principle of EU law: the right to be heard in matters that significantly affect one’s interests.

The facts of the case

M, a law graduate, made an asylum application in Ireland in May 2008. He was interviewed and his claim was rejected at first instance in August 2008.  M’s subsequent appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal was refused, in October 2008. The appeal was on the papers: the first instance decision-maker had invoked a provision in Irish law that denied him an oral appeal (on account of his having delayed before making his asylum claim). M subsequently lodged a claim for subsidiary protection.

At that time, the Irish system was structured in such a way that individuals could not simultaneously claim both asylum and subsidiary protection.  Only  once  an  asylum  claim was finally determined, could a person  claim  subsidiary  protection  (or  indeed permission to remain on other  grounds).  All claims for subsidiary protection were decided by the Minister for Justice (as distinct from asylum claims, which were decided by an independent body). No personal interviews were carried out for these types of claim, and there was no right of appeal. In M’s case his claim for subsidiary protection was rejected in writing on 30 September 2010. The delay – of almost two years – was not uncommon. The Minister’s decision relied to a large extent on the two earlier decisions that had rejected M’s claim for asylum, and in particular the negative credibility findings therein.

M challenged the Irish procedure in the High Court, who referred the following question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling:

‘In  a  case  where  an applicant seeks subsidiary protection status following  a refusal to grant refugee status and it is proposed that such  an  application  should  be  refused,  does the requirement to cooperate  with  an applicant imposed on a Member State in Article 4(1)  of … Directive 2004/83 … require the administrative authorities of  the  Member  State in question to supply such applicant with the results  of  such an assessment before a decision is finally made so as  to  enable  him  or her to address those aspects of the proposed decision which suggest a negative result?’

The CJEU, in its judgment of 22 November 2012, M. (C-277/11, EU:C:2012:744),  answered  this  question in the negative. However, somewhat unusually, the CJEU went on to consider a further question: whether M’s ‘right to be heard’ had been respected. The CJEU found that it had not: M should have been afforded an opportunity to make his views known before a decision was reached on his claim for subsidiary protection. The fact that M had had an interview for his earlier asylum claim was insufficient.

The case returned to the Irish High Court, who held on 23 June 2013 that the Minister for Justice had wrongly failed to afford M an effective hearing when his application for subsidiary protection was being examined. The Minister brought an appeal against that decision before the Supreme Court and M also brought a cross-appeal – neither party considered the High Court had correctly interpreted the CJEU judgment.

While that appeal was pending, on 14 November 2013, the Irish authorities changed the procedure to give effect to the High Court judgment. Personal interviews for applicants for subsidiary protection were introduced, as were full appeal rights to the Tribunal. However instead of fusing the decision-making process for the two claims (as is done in all other EU States) the new procedure dealt with the applications separately: one claim after the other. Applicants for international protection, if unsuccessful, were put through a near-identical process, twice: a personal interview, a first instance decision, an appeal to the Tribunal, another personal interview, another first instance decision and a further appeal. This process, naturally, gave rise to delays.

Meanwhile M’s test case litigation continued. The Supreme Court stayed the proceedings and on 24 November 2014 referred another question to the CJEU:

‘Does  the  “right to be heard” in European Union law require that an applicant   for  subsidiary  protection,  made  pursuant  to  Council Directive   2004/83/EC,   be   accorded   an  oral  hearing  of  that application,  including the right to call or cross-examine witnesses, when  the application is made in circumstances where the Member State concerned  operates two separate procedures, one after the other, for examining  applications  for  refugee  status  and  applications  for subsidiary protection, respectively?’

On 9 February 2017, the CJEU gave judgment. The Court held that, as Ireland was not operating a single procedure to determine asylum and subsidiary protection (the model employed by other European Union States), the Procedures Directive (Directive 2005/85; Ireland opted out of the later Directive 2013/32, which replaced it) did not apply to claims for subsidiary protection in Ireland.  This reiterated a point the CJEU had settled previously, and most recently restated last year (in another Irish case):  Danqua  v  Minister  for Justice and Equality Ireland [2016] EUECJ C-429/15.  The CJEU emphasised that the right to be heard was an important general principle of EU law. When making a decision that significantly affects  a  person’s interests (as here), the State must ensure that their  right  to  input  into  that  decision  is facilitated, so as to give full effect to the right to be heard.

The CJEU went on to discuss the scope of that right, finding that a personal  interview  would  not necessarily be required for all subsidiary protection claims, given that a substantive asylum interview would already  have  been  carried  out.  The Irish authorities had essentially played it safe after the CJEU’s first judgment in this case, by bringing in personal interviews across the board, for all subsidiary protection cases. The CJEU clarified that what it had meant was that there must be some way for an applicant’s views to be heard. This could be in writing or by personal interview – depending on the individual case. Some cases may require a fresh interview, and some may not.

The CJEU made clear that the Irish authorities are free to rely on the information gathered in the course of assessment of an asylum claim (including statements made in an interview or at a hearing) when it comes to assess the claim for subsidiary protection. The  critical matter is that the state must carry out  an  individualised  assessment  of  the  relevant  facts;  whether an interview is necessary so to do – in the particular situation of Ireland’s bifurcated  system  for  assessing  international protection  claims – is  fact-specific.

Further developments

The outcome of the CJEU decision has been overtaken by recent events. On 31  December  2016 a new procedure for international protection claims was brought  into  force  via  the  commencement  of  relevant sections of the International  Protection  Act  2015.  The Act provides for a new, fused ‘single procedure’ whereby asylum and subsidiary protection claims will be assessed at the same time and determined in one decision. That decision, if negative, can be appealed to the Tribunal on both asylum and subsidiary protection grounds (in the same hearing, for the first time). The introduction of a single procedure brings Ireland into line with the rest of the European Union. The new system, once fully up and running, is likely to result in a reduction of delays in what had developed over the years into an overly prolonged system for assessing international protection claims.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

JHA4: chapter I:5

Photo credit: smelltheroses blog