Skip to Content

EU Schengen border control. Photo: Daniel Schludi

European Court of Justice sets new obstacles for deportation

The latest judgment by the European Court of Justice (file number C-517/17 ), which was published on July 16, received little media attention. This decision calls into question the European asylum system.

Published: August 12, 2020, 9:30 am

    Read more

    The highest EU court, whose jurisprudence is binding for all member states, has granted stay to an asylum seeker from Eritrea who had applied for asylum in Germany, although he had already been recognized as a refugee in Italy.

    The responsible Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) in Germany therefore wanted to transfer the man to the Italian authorities as part of a retrial. According to the provisions of the relevant Dublin Regulation, responsibility for asylum-seeking third-country nationals usually lies with the member state in which the person first entered the so-called Schengen area.

    The accompanying procedural guideline 2013/32 therefore provides that an application for international protection in Germany, for example, can be regarded as inadmissible if this protection has already been granted by another EU country, in this case Italy. The ECJ has now significantly increased the hurdles for returning migrants in such cases.

    The Luxembourg judges emphasized that the rejection of an asylum application is only permissible if the person concerned has had the opportunity to be heard personally beforehand. At this hearing – and that is the real crux of the matter – the applicant can comment on whether another member state has actually granted him international protection.

    He is then able to present all the specific circumstances of his case so that the asylum authority can decide on the basis of this information whether the applicant is in “serious danger” if he is transferred to the EU country of first entry and subject to “inhuman or degrading treatment” according to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Should this be the case, the return of the person concerned as provided for in the Dublin Regulation would be inadmissible. The “refugee” is then likely to stay in the member state to which he illegally moved to.

    In the future, the BAMF will have to carefully check each individual case since the authority will have to prove in court that the relevant provisions of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights were adhered to – a long and arduous task. Moreover, whether this requirement is being met in practice is likely to lead to lengthy and controversial discussions. Inadequate accommodation options or hostility from the local population in a member state could be sufficient to make the deportation of a foreigner impossible.

    It is therefore foreseeable that the already comparatively small number of transfers from Germany to other EU countries will continue to decline as a result of this new ruling. In addition, many more “protection seekers” who have already been registered in Italy or other poor Schengen countries, will now make their way to rich EU countries.

    The Luxembourg judge’s verdict is also likely to sow a lot of discord in the EU since it does not value the so-called “European spirit”. The question arises as to how the ECJ made the assumption that the Charter of Fundamental Rights is not being respected by some individual countries. The observance of the fundamental and human rights as well as compliance with the European regulations on migration and asylum, have always been essential prerequisites for open borders in the Schengen zone.

    The decision of the European Court of Justice has yet another unintended consequence: If “refugees’ are not allowed to be sent back to other member states because they are threatened with inhuman or degrading treatment there, then the meaningfulness of the quota regulation wanted by Brussels and Berlin for the distribution of asylum seekers within the EU as the core of a new European asylum policy, would no longer be valid.

    Migrants who have been assigned to an “unattractive” host country, will obviously try to move to their “desired state” because this expectation is strengthened by the new ECJ ruling.

    Consider donating to support our work

    Help us to produce more articles like this. FreeWestMedia is depending on donations from our readers to keep going. With your help, we expose the mainstream fake news agenda.

    Keep ​your language polite​. Readers from many different countries visit and contribute to Free West Media and we must therefore obey the rules in​,​ for example​, ​Germany. Illegal content will be deleted.

    If you have been approved to post comments without preview from FWM, you are responsible for violation​s​ of​ any​ law. This means that FWM may be forced to cooperate with authorities in a possible crime investigation.

    If your comments are subject to preview ​by FWM, please be patient. We continually review comments but depending on the time of day it can take up to several hours before your comment is reviewed.

    We reserve the right to del​ete​ comments that are offensive, contain slander or foul language, or are irrelevant to the discussion.

    • LuciusAnnaeusSeneca

      The European courts sysem is certainly rife with individuals who are
      ideologically in sympathy with illegal migrants. But there are many who
      are even more damaging to the exercise of law and justice, namely those
      who have detached the reason for, and the consequences of, their judicial decisions from the real world and make
      them with no concern for the consequences of their actions, a mere academic exercise. They
      forget that the courts system serves the greater good (society and the
      body politic), and thus should be accountable to it. However, for many
      magistrates and judges, they take the definition of an “independent
      judiciary” to be that of an unaccountable one.

      • They act as if they are above censure and scrutiny and accountable to nobody other than their own professional body. ‘Time we started to look into this.

        • LuciusAnnaeusSeneca

          Were all to be known, it would probably turn out that most people who now work in the courts system were chosen because they take orders, and hide that fact because they are above censure or scrutiny. They are not accountable to the public, but instead to their hidden masters.

    Europe

    Recipients of placebo jabs to have same privileges as the fully vaxxed, UK minister says

    LondonThe British Vaccine Deployment Minister Nadhim Zahawi stretched the incredulity of his subjects once again by announcing that people who have received placebo jabs would be regarded as "fully vaccinated". According to Zahawi, fake shots would be considered proof of vaccination status.

    Second French hospital calls unlimited strike against forced vax

    LyonThe SUD Santé Social union of the Édouard-Herriot hospital in Lyon filed a strike notice in order to oppose the compulsory vaccination of caregivers and the exclusion of unvaccinated patients. It will begin on July 29, for an unlimited period.

    Spain’s new National Security Law ‘tailor-made for government to act without democratic control’

    MadridSpanish legal experts consider it a scandal that the Sánchez government "does not want to submit to parliamentary control" with the new National Security Law.

    How safe are jabs if vaccinated still get infected and transmit Covid-19?

    The aggressive promotion of Covid vaccine passports and draconian vaccine mandates by globalists are not going as smoothly as they had hoped. Vaccinated people can still get infected and transmit disease, so this clearly eliminates the argument that the unvaccinated bring harm to others. And how safe are the jabs?

    German double standards: No ban, no masks, no distance at Berlin’s gay parade

    BerlinGerman critics of the Corona measures are now almost routinely denied the basic right to gather peacefully in the open air. Anyone who wants to hold a counter-demonstration against such rallies can also expect it to be approved.

    The herd immunity through vaccination experiment has failed

    The single most important objective of mass vaccination with Covid-19 vaccines was to achieve herd immunity. This is no longer within reach. Now "experts" not only blame disappointing vaccine coverage rates but also the unvaccinated.

    Inquisition, cyberstalking and cancel culture in journalism during a pandemic

    MarseilleAnd the mainstream media has been hooked on "fact-checking" which acts as a fig leaf for the current crisis in journalism.

    Incompetence or malice: Navalny case uncovers European bureaucratic inconsistencies

    MoscowA year ago, the topic of the alleged “poisoning” of the Russian oppositional blogger and political activist Alexei Navalny was one of the most discussed in the West. Almost everyone commented: politicians were denouncing the next “crimes” of the Kremlin, while journalists and human rights activists called the incident with Navalny a political reprisal if not a political murder sanctioned personally by Putin.

    German district deliberately switched off flood warning sirens

    The flood disaster in Germany is being blamed by the mainstream on the "climate". But human lives were deliberately endangered and sacrificed for that end, it appears.

    Vaccines may be introducing graphene-based ‘neuromodulation’ technology

    AlmeríaSpanish scientists have become aware of graphene oxide being used in Covid vaccines, but their claims have been dismissed by "fact-checkers" as nonsense. However, graphene-based “neuromodulation” technology showing “biocircuits” based on graphene oxide are, in fact, already available.

    Go to archive