SC: CIRP Need Not Be Set Aside Solely for Fraudulent Filing of Section 9 Plea  ||  Supreme Court: Compromise Decree Passed Without Impleading Necessary Party is Void  ||  SC: Cheque Dishonour Notice Valid if Sent to Drawer’s Address and Received by Family  ||  J&K&L HC: Minority During Attestation Cannot Justify Decades-Long Delay in Challenging Mutation  ||  Bombay HC: WhatsApp Circulation of Objectionable Photos Can Attract SC/ST Act  ||  J&K&L HC: Cardiac Arrest From Stress of Long-Distance Driving is Compensable  ||  Delhi HC: Accused Cannot Delay Trial and Then Rely on Delay to Seek Bail  ||  Calcutta HC: Insurer Must Compensate Child’s Accidental Death Despite Driver’s Fake Licence  ||  Bombay HC Tells X to Take Down Defamatory Post Targeting Serum Institute, CEO Adar Poonawalla  ||  Delhi High Court Restores Arbitral Award in DMRC’s Favour Passed by Employee-Arbitrator    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved