Abstract
AbstractThe Common European Asylum System constitutes one of the principal areas in which the fundamental rights of individuals are essentially placed in competition with the core principle of mutual confidence and the need to preserve the effectiveness of EU law. That competitive relationship becomes particularly evident when applicants for international protection rely on alleged violations of their fundamental rights in order to contest their transfer to the Member State that is normally responsible for examining their asylum request according to the criteria of the Dublin III Regulation. The balancing process that needs to be carried out in this respect and the measure of the monitoring obligation that EU law imposes on the receiving Member State regarding the protection of the fundamental rights of asylum seekers are well exemplified by the preliminary ruling in Jawo. That case provides additional clarification regarding the circumstances in which the protection of fundamental rights may introduce exceptions to the principle of mutual trust. At the same time, it illustrates the inherent tensions that exist between the protection of fundamental rights and the application of the principle of mutual confidence.
Highlights
The Jawo CaseThe legal proceedings in Jawo concerned a third country national who had reached Italy by sea and had lodged an initial application for asylum there
The Common European Asylum System constitutes one of the principal areas in which the fundamental rights of individuals are essentially placed in competition with the core principle of mutual confidence and the need to preserve the effectiveness of EU law
That competitive relationship becomes evident when applicants for international protection rely on alleged violations of their fundamental rights in order to contest their transfer to the Member State that is normally responsible for examining their asylum request according to the criteria of the Dublin III Regulation
Summary
The legal proceedings in Jawo concerned a third country national who had reached Italy by sea and had lodged an initial application for asylum there. He stated that the reason that he could not be found in his accommodation was because he was visiting a friend in another town and asserted that nobody had informed him that he needed to report his absence He further argued that his transfer to Italy would be contrary to the requirements of Dublin III because there exist serious systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants of international protection in that Member State that result in a risk of degrading treatment. The referring court wanted to know in this respect whether an asylum seeker is absconding only where he purposefully evades the reach of the national authorities in order to prevent his transfer It further asked whether the lawfulness of a transfer should be ascertained by reference to the expected living conditions that the applicant would be subject to after the grant of international protection in the Member State normally responsible for examining the asylum request. It sought guidance on the criteria according to which the living conditions of a person recognized as a beneficiary of international protection have to be assessed under the provisions of EU law
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
