SC: Public Premises Act Prevails over State Rent Laws For Evicting Unauthorised Occupants  ||  SC: Doctors Were Unwavering Heroes in COVID-19, and Their Sacrifice Remains Indelible  ||  SC Sets Up Secondary Medical Board to Assess Passive Euthanasia Plea of Man in Vegetative State  ||  NCLAT: Amounts Listed As ‘Other Advances’ in Company’s Balance Sheet aren’t Financial Debt under IBC  ||  NCLT Ahmedabad: Objections to Coc Cannot Bar RP From Challenging Preferential Transactions  ||  J&K&L HC: Courts Should Exercise Caution When Granting Interim Relief in Public Infrastructure Cases  ||  Bombay HC: SARFAESI Sale Invalid if Sale Certificate is Not Issued Prior to IBC Moratorium  ||  Supreme Court: Police May Freeze Bank Accounts under S.102 CrPC in Prevention of Corruption Cases  ||  SC: Arbitrator’s Mandate Ends on Time Expiry; Substituted Arbitrator Must Continue After Extension  ||  SC: Woman May Move Her Department’s ICC For Harassment by Employee of Another Workplace    

Shiraz Baig Mirza v. Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal - (08 Mar 2016)

ECJ keeps door open for deporting asylum seekers

Human Rights

If the exodus of asylum seekers from war torn countries into Europe was not a handful, Member States of the European Union are now grasping with the modalities of returning unauthorised to ‘safe third countries’.

In the instant case , the applicant, a Pakistani national, entered Hungary from Serbia, and without authorisation left for the Czech Republic. Eventually returned by Czech authorities to Hungary, where his application for international protection was rejected as inadmissible, the Hungarians decided to send him to Serbia, the safe third country. The national court referred to the European Court of Justice a question on the conditions in which a Member State could propose sending the applicant to a safe third country, without examining the substance of the application.

The Advocate General opined thus: the applicant had not shown good faith by leaving Hungary before the procedure was complete, which was to be rightly regarded as withdrawal of application. An application for international protection could not deprive the Member State of its ‘responsibility’ of sending the applicant to a safe third country. Finally, Member States cannot be forced to continue examining applications for international protection after the same was discontinued on valid legal grounds.

Tags : PAKISTAN   SAFE THIRD COUNTRY   INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved