SC: Forfeiture of Earnest Money Impermissible When Both Buyer and Seller are at Fault  ||  Supreme Court: Gravity of Offence Cannot Defeat Speedy Trial; Pre-Trial Detention is Punishment  ||  SC: Terrorist Act under UAPA Includes Conspiracies to Disrupt Essential Supplies, Not Just Violence  ||  Supreme Court Directs Measures to Prevent False and Frivolous Complaints Against Judicial Officers  ||  SC: Mere Participation in Arbitration Doesn’t Bar Challenging Arbitrator; Waiver Must be in Writing  ||  SC: Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the Plaintiff, as Dominus Litis, Cannot be Forced to Add a Defendant  ||  SC: Law Does Not Change With a New Bench; Decisions of a Coordinate Bench are Binding  ||  Delhi HC Absence of Formal Arrest under Section 311A Crpc Does Not Bar Giving Handwriting Samples  ||  Del HC: Security Guards Performing Duties Cannot Be Prosecuted For Wrongful Restraint or Molestation  ||  Bombay HC: Housing Society Earning From Telecom Towers Isn’t An ‘Industry’; Staff Get No Gratuity    

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