{"id":1672,"date":"2020-09-16T18:14:44","date_gmt":"2020-09-16T16:14:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/?p=1672"},"modified":"2022-02-11T21:47:00","modified_gmt":"2022-02-11T20:47:00","slug":"right-of-asylum-seekers-to-be-heard-judgment-of-the-cjeu-in-the-addis-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/right-of-asylum-seekers-to-be-heard-judgment-of-the-cjeu-in-the-addis-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Right of asylum seekers to be heard: judgment of the CJEU in the Addis case."},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In the case of Addis<\/em> (C-517\/17, 16.7.2020), the CJEU ruled on the failure by a German administrative authority to comply with the obligation, laid down in the Procedures Directive <\/strong>(2013\/32\/EU), to give an applicant for international protection the opportunity of a personal interview<\/strong> before the adoption of a decision declaring his application inadmissible on account of the fact that he had entered Germany from a safe country, namely Italy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Relying on Articles 14 and 34 of this Directive and the importance of such an interview in order to avoid expulsions which would entail a breach of Article 4 of the EU-Charter<\/strong> (\u00a7 52), the CJEU decided that such a failure should lead to the said decision being annulled and the case being remitted to the determining authority, unless the applicable domestic law allows the applicant, in an appeal procedure<\/strong>, to set out in person all of his or her arguments<\/strong> against the decision in a hearing which complies with the detailed conditions and fundamental guarantees set out in Article 15 of the Procedures Directive (\u201crequirements for a personal interview\u201d), and those arguments are not capable of altering that decision. The CJEU thereby stressed that compliance with the safeguards laid down in Article 15 was essential in preserving the effectiveness of the right to be heard<\/strong> at that subsequent stage of the procedure (\u00a7 71).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interestingly, the CJEU contrasted this approach with its ruling in M. G. & N. R.<\/em> (C-383\/13 PPU, 10.9.2013) according to which \u201cin principle, an infringement of the rights of the defence<\/strong> results in annulment of the decision taken at the end of the administrative procedure at issue only if the outcome of the procedure might have been different<\/strong> had it not been for such an irregularity\u201d. It justified the different approach adopted in Addis <\/em>by referring to the binding nature of the prescriptions laid down in Article 15 and the paramount importance of a personal interview<\/strong> in the procedure for examination of an application of international protection (\u00a7 70). However, considering the fact that M. G. & N. R.<\/em> was about detention under the Return Directive<\/strong>, a no less serious interference with civil liberties, and that the case for an interview in this case was pleaded by reference to such fundamental rights as the rights of the defence<\/strong> and the right to be heard<\/strong>, one may wonder why the Addis<\/em> approach was not adopted already in M. G. & N. R.<\/em> For what can be the sense of hearing a person only when it can be anticipated that he or she might come up with unforeseen arguments? How can the actual enjoyment of a fundamental right be made conditional upon the prediction of the unpredictable? (For a critical view on this judgment, see Johan Callewaert, \u201cTo accede or not to accede: European protection of human rights at the crossroads\u201d, European journal of Human Rights, 2014, p. 506-7). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Be that as it may, the emphasis in Addis<\/em> on preserving the effectiveness of the safeguards<\/strong> provided by the Procedures Directive has much in common with the approach recently followed by the ECHR<\/strong> in such matters. In N.D. & N.T. v. Spain<\/em>, another migration case (nos. 8675\/15 and 8697\/15, 13.2.2020, see below on this page), the ECHR stressed that by virtue of Article 4 of Protocol no. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsions), Contracting States to the Convention are under an obligation to provide persons seeking international protection with an effective access to their territory and to procedures allowing for an effective examination<\/strong> of their application. And in Khlaifia and Others v. Italy <\/em>(no. 16483\/12, 15.12.2016), it stated: \u201cArticle 4 of Protocol No. 4 does not guarantee the right to an individual interview<\/strong> in all circumstances; the requirements of this provision may be satisfied where each alien has a genuine and effective possibility of submitting arguments<\/strong> against his or her expulsion, and where those arguments are examined in an appropriate manner<\/strong> by the authorities of the respondent State.\u201d (\u00a7 248)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Addis<\/a>Download PDF<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the case of Addis (C-517\/17, 16.7.2020), the CJEU ruled on the failure by a German administrative authority to comply with the obligation, laid down in the Procedures Directive (2013\/32\/EU), to give an applicant for international protection the opportunity of a personal interview before the adoption of a decision declaring his application inadmissible on account […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1672","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-court-of-justice-of-the-eu","category-recent-case-law"],"translation":{"provider":"WPGlobus","version":"3.0.2","language":"de","enabled_languages":["en","de","fr"],"languages":{"en":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":false},"de":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false},"fr":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false}}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1672","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1672"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1672\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1682,"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1672\/revisions\/1682"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1672"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1672"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/johan-callewaert.eu\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1672"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}