Kerala HC: Revisional Power U/S 263 Not Invocable When AO Grants Sec 32AC Deduction After Inquiry  ||  J&K&L HC: Section 359 BNSS Doesn’t Limit High Court’s Inherent Power U/S 528 to Quash FIRs  ||  Bombay HC: BMC Ban on Footpath Cooking via Gas/Grill Doesn’t Apply to Vendors Using Induction  ||  Madras HC: Buyer Not Liable for Seller’s Tax Default; Purchase Tax Can’t Be Imposed under TNGST Act  ||  Kerala HC: Oral Allegations Alone Insufficient to Sustain Bribery Charges Against Ministers  ||  Delhi HC: CCI Cannot Levy Interest Retrospectively Before Valid Service of Demand Notice  ||  Delhi HC: VC Rules Don’t Shield PMLA Accused From Physically Appearing Before ED in Probe  ||  SC: If Complaint Reveals Cognizable Offence, Magistrate May Order FIR Registration U/S .156(3) CrPC  ||  SC: Private Buses Can’t Operate on Inter-State Routes Overlapping Notified State Transport Routes  ||  Delhi HC: Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Provisional Attachment When PMLA Remedy Exists    

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