Beneficiaries of International Protection in the EU - Mutual Trust and the Prohibition of Inhuman or Degrading Treatment - Case Greece
Takala, Erika (2022)
Takala, Erika
2022
Julkaisu on tekijänoikeussäännösten alainen. Teosta voi lukea ja tulostaa henkilökohtaista käyttöä varten. Käyttö kaupallisiin tarkoituksiin on kielletty.
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2022121872469
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2022121872469
Tiivistelmä
Secondary movements of individuals who have already been granted international protection in an EU Member State have increased in the past few years, especially from Greece. These individuals often leave the Member State that granted protection status due to inadequate living conditions and difficulties accessing social services. When these beneficiaries of international protection apply for international protection in another Member State, the Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU allows for the Member State to hold the application inadmissible, as the individual has already been granted international protection. The individual is then usually sent back to the Member State that granted the protection status. Holding the application inadmissible and sending the individual back to the other Member State are often justified by the principle of mutual trust. Mutual trust entails that Member States respect and comply with EU law and fundamental rights. The fundamental rights invoked in these situations are the prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the principle of non-refoulement. These fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union allow for no exceptions.
This thesis uses a legal dogmatic method and analyses and interprets the sources of law and case law regarding mutual trust, the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the principle of non-refoulement. One of the main objectives of this thesis is to research the principle of mutual trust and if it allows exceptions. Another key question is when do the conditions in the Member State that granted the protection status to the individual amount to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment so that the beneficiary of international protection cannot be transferred back to that Member State and how should theseconditions be assessed. Greece is used as a case study throughout the thesis. The answers to the research questions are provided by the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights. Both Courts have given important judgments on how to assess these situations, but the case law also leaves room for interpretation. National cases from Member States are compared to these judgments as well.
This thesis concludes that mutual trust weighs more than it should and can easily leave human rights violations ignored. The CJEU has set the threshold extremely high for deeming the conditions in the Member State that granted protection to constitute as exposing the individual to inhuman or degrading treatment. The CJEU should change its narrative and clarify the obligations Member States have in assessing the fundamental rights situation in another Member State. The EU should intervene in the problem of increasing secondary movements and aim for a truly harmonised asylum system amongst the Member States.
This thesis uses a legal dogmatic method and analyses and interprets the sources of law and case law regarding mutual trust, the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the principle of non-refoulement. One of the main objectives of this thesis is to research the principle of mutual trust and if it allows exceptions. Another key question is when do the conditions in the Member State that granted the protection status to the individual amount to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment so that the beneficiary of international protection cannot be transferred back to that Member State and how should theseconditions be assessed. Greece is used as a case study throughout the thesis. The answers to the research questions are provided by the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights. Both Courts have given important judgments on how to assess these situations, but the case law also leaves room for interpretation. National cases from Member States are compared to these judgments as well.
This thesis concludes that mutual trust weighs more than it should and can easily leave human rights violations ignored. The CJEU has set the threshold extremely high for deeming the conditions in the Member State that granted protection to constitute as exposing the individual to inhuman or degrading treatment. The CJEU should change its narrative and clarify the obligations Member States have in assessing the fundamental rights situation in another Member State. The EU should intervene in the problem of increasing secondary movements and aim for a truly harmonised asylum system amongst the Member States.