Supreme Court Upholds Conviction as Husband Failed to Explain Wife’s Death in Matrimonial Home  ||  Supreme Court: Crime Scene Re-Enactment Does Not Always Violate Right Against Self-Incrimination  ||  Supreme Court: Cognizance Taken Without Hearing Accused under BNSS Section 223 is Void Ab Initio  ||  Supreme Court Upholds Will in Sister’s Favour, Says Excluding Natural Heirs is Not Suspicious  ||  Delhi HC: Absence of Public Witnesses and Videography in NDPS Recovery Relevant for Bail Decisions  ||  Raj HC Initiates Suo Motu Cognizance Over Severe Water Crisis in Jodhpur, Issues Interim Directions  ||  Del HC: Courts Cannot Direct, Monitor Inquiry Into Police Delay in Investigation After Bail Decision  ||  Supreme Court: After the BNSS, a Pre-Cognizance Hearing is Mandatory in PMLA Cases  ||  SC: Landowners Cannot be Forced to Waive Statutory Compensation to Claim Other Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Banks are Lenient With Big Borrowers But Strict With Ordinary Loan Applicants    

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