Evidence and credibility assessment in the context of the ... › sites › default › files ›...
64
European Asylum Support Office SUPPORT IS OUR MISSION Compilaon of jurisprudence Evidence and credibility assessment in the context of the Common European Asylum System 2018 Produced by IARLJ-Europe under contract to EASO EASO Professional Development Series for members of courts and tribunals
Transcript of Evidence and credibility assessment in the context of the ... › sites › default › files ›...
-
European Asylum Support Office
SUPPORT IS OUR MISSION
Compilation of jurisprudence
Evidence and credibility assessment in the context of the Common European Asylum System
2018
Produced by IARLJ-Europe under contract to EASO
EASO Professional Development Seriesfor members of courts and tribunals
-
EASO professional development materials have been created in cooperation with members of courts and tribunals on the following topics:
• introduction to the Common European Asylum System for courts and tribunals;• qualification for international protection (Directive 2011/95/EU);• asylum procedures and the principle of non-refoulement;• evidence and credibility assessment in the context of the Common European Asylum System;• Article 15(c) qualification directive (2011/95/EU);• exclusion: Articles 12 and 17 qualification directive (2011/95/EU);• ending international protection: Articles 11, 14, 16 and 19 qualification directive (2011/95/EU);• country of origin information.
The Professional development series comprises Judicial analyses, Judicial trainers’ guidance notes and Compilations of jurisprudence for each topic covered, apart from Country of origin information which comprises a Judicial practical guide accompanied by a Compilation of jurispru-dence. All materials are developed in English. For more information on publications, including on the availability of different language versions, please visit www.easo.europa.eu/training-quality/courts-and-tribunals.
-
European Asylum Support Office
SUPPORT IS OUR MISSION
Compilation of jurisprudence
Evidence and credibility assessment in the context of the Common European Asylum System
EASO Professional Development Series for members of courts and tribunals
2018
-
Manuscript completed in November 2017
Neither the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) nor any person acting on behalf of the EASO is responsible for the use that might be made of the following information.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018
Print ISBN 978-92-9494-758-1 doi:10.2847/006566 BZ-07-17-014-EN-CPDF ISBN 978-92-9494-757-4 doi:10.2847/64928 BZ-07-17-014-EN-N
Cover illustration: baldyrgan/Shutterstock.com
© European Asylum Support Office (EASO), 2018 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the EASO copyright, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders.
-
CJ - Evidence and credibility assessment in the context of the Common European Asylum System — 3
List of abbreviations
APD Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status
APD (recast) Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast)
CEAS Common European Asylum System
CJEU Court of Justice of the European Union
COI Country of origin information
CREDO project CREDO – Improved Credibility Assessment in EU Asylum Pro-cedures project, led by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee with project partners UNHCR, IARLJ and Asylum Aid (UK)
DSSH Difference, stigma, shame, harm
Dublin III Regulation Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State respon-sible for examining an application for international protec-tion lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast)
EASO European Asylum Support Office
ECHR European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950)
ECtHR European Court of Human Rights
EDAL European Database of Asylum Law
EU European Union
EU Charter Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
EWCA Court of Appeal of England and Wales (UK)
Family Reunification Directive Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification
IARLJ International Association of Refugee Law Judges
IASFM International Association for the Study of Forced Migration
IEHC Irish High Court
IJRL International Journal of Refugee Law
IP Istanbul Protocol (Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment)
LGBTI Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex
NGO Non-governmental organisation
OFPRA Office français de protection des réfugiés et apatrides (French Office for the protection of refugees and stateless persons)
-
4 — CJ - Evidence and credibility assessment in the context of the Common European Asylum System
PTSD Post-traumatic stress disorder
QD Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted
QD (recast) Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualifica-tion of third-country nationals or stateless persons as bene-ficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast)
RAIO Refugee, Asylum and International Operations Directorate (United States)
RCD (recast) Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the recep-tion of applicants for international protection (recast)
Refugee Convention Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951), as amended by its Protocol (1967) [referred to in EU asylum leg-islation as ‘the Geneva Convention’]
TEU Treaty on European Union
TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
UK United Kingdom
UKIAT UK Immigration and Asylum Tribunal
UKUT UK Upper Tribunal
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
-
CJ - Evidence and credibility assessment in the context of the Common European Asylum System — 5
Contributors
This judicial analysis has been developed by a process having two components: an Editorial Team (ET) of judges and tribunal members with overall responsibility for the final product and a drafting team of experts.
In order to ensure the integrity of the principle of judicial independence and that the EASO Professional Development Series for members of courts and tribunals is developed and deliv-ered under judicial guidance, an ET, composed of serving judges and tribunal members with extensive experience and expertise in the field of asylum law, was selected under the auspices of a joint monitoring group. The group is composed of representatives of the contracting par-ties, EASO and IARLJ-Europe. The ET reviewed drafts, gave detailed instructions to the drafting team, drafted amendments and was the final decision-making body as to the scope, structure, content and design of the work. The work of the ET was undertaken through a combination of face-to-face meetings in Oslo in May 2016, Valletta in January 2017 and Amsterdam in April 2017, as well as regular electronic/telephonic communication.
Editorial team of judges and tribunal members
The judges and tribunal members of the ET for this judicial snalysis were: Hugo Storey (United Kingdom, Chair), Hilkka Becker (Ireland), Johan Berg, (Norway), Jakub Camrda (Czech Repub-lic), Bernard Dawson (United Kingdom), Katelijne Declerck (Belgium), Harald Dörig (Germany), Florence Malvasio (France), Liesbeth Steendijk (Netherlands) and Boštjan Zalar (Slovenia). The ET was supported and assisted in its task by Project Coordination Manager, Clara Odofin.
Drafting team of experts
The drafting team consisted of lead expert Judge James Latter (Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), London, United Kingdom), Dr Céline Bauloz (Global Migration Centre, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland), Laurent Dufour (National Asylum Court, Montreuil, France), Dr Jane Herlihy (Centre for the Study of Emotion and Law, London, United Kingdom), Dr Otto Mallmann (Presiding Justice (retired), Federal Administrative Court, Leipzig, Germany) and Elise Russcher (Council of State, The Hague, the Netherlands). Consultants Claire Thomas and Frances Nicholson provided edito-rial support.
Acknowledgements
Comments were received from Judge Lars Bay Larsen of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and Judge Ledi Bianku of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in their personal capacities. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Division of International Protection, also expressed its views on the draft text.
-
6 — CJ - Evidence and credibility assessment in the context of the Common European Asylum System
Comments were also received from the following participants in the EASO network of court and tribunal members and members of the EASO Consultative Forum: Dobroslav Rukov (judge, Sofia City Administrative Court, Bulgaria); Jacek Chlebny (judge, Supreme Administrative Court, Poland); Anne Kneer (law clerk, Asylum Department IV of the Swiss Federal Adminis-trative Court); Binh Tschan (law clerk, Asylum Department V of the Swiss Federal Adminis-trative Court); Anders Bengtsson (senior lawyer (föredragande jurist), Administrative Court of Göteborg, Sweden); Maria Déhn (judge (rådman), Administrative Court of Göteborg, Swe-den); John Panofsky (senior lawyer (föredragande jurist), Administrative Court of Göteborg, Sweden); John Barnes (retired judge, United Kingdom); Allan Mackey (retired judge, New Zealand and United Kingdom); Debora Singer (Asylum Aid/Migrants Resource Centre, United Kingdom); Asylum Research Consultancy (ARC), (United Kingdom); Stinne Østergaard Poulsen (legal adviser, Danish Refugee Council); Hana Lupačová (public defender of human rights, Czech Republic); Gábor Gyulai (refugee programme director, Hungarian Helsinki Commit-tee); International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT, Denmark); and S. Chelvan (barrister, No 5 Chambers, United Kingdom).
All these comments were taken into consideration by the ET in finalising the text for publica-tion. The members of the ET and EASO are grateful to all those who have made comments, which have been very helpful in finalising this analysis.
This compilation will be updated, as necessary, by EASO in accordance with the methodology for the EASO Professional Development Series for members of courts and tribunals.
Compilation of jurisprudence
The purpose of this compilation of jurisprudence is to provide courts and tribunals in Member States with a helpful overview on the evidence and credibility assessment cases. It should serve as a source of inspiration also for the judicial trainers in drafting the case studies or to conduct small group discussions or moot court sessions. In addition to the many Member State jurisdictions that have extensive case law on evidence and credibility assessment, the ET decided to include jurisprudence in this Compilation from the Court of Justice of the Euopean Union (CJEU), the European Court of Human Rights and national law.
-
CJ - Evidence and credibility assessment in the context of the Common European Asylum System — 7
CJEU
Cour
tCa
se n
ame/
refe
renc
e/da
teRe
leva
nce/
key
wor
ds/m
ain
poin
tsCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
P v
S an
d Co
rnw
all C
ount
y Co
unci
l
Case
C-1
3/94
EU:C
:199
6:17
0
30.4
.199
6
Judg
men
t aft
er a
refe
renc
e fo
r a
prel
imin
ary
rulin
g fr
om th
e In
dust
rial
Tri
buna
l, Tr
uro
(Uni
ted
King
dom
) on
equa
l tre
atm
ent
for
men
and
wom
en.
Gen
der
— m
ale
and
fem
ale
wor
kers
— a
cces
s to
em
ploy
men
t and
wor
king
con
ditio
ns —
dis
mis
sal o
f a tr
anss
exua
l for
a
reas
on a
risi
ng fr
om th
e ge
nder
reas
sign
men
t of t
he p
erso
n co
ncer
ned.
Para
. 20:
‘Acc
ordi
ngly
, the
sco
pe o
f the
dire
ctive
can
not b
e co
nfine
d si
mpl
y to
dis
crim
inati
on b
ased
on
the
fact
that
a
pers
on is
of o
ne o
r ot
her
sex.
In v
iew
of i
ts p
urpo
se a
nd th
e na
ture
of t
he r
ight
s w
hich
it s
eeks
to s
afeg
uard
, the
sco
pe o
f th
e di
recti
ve is
als
o su
ch a
s to
app
ly to
dis
crim
inati
on a
risi
ng, a
s in
this
cas
e, fr
om th
e ge
nder
reas
sign
men
t of t
he p
erso
n co
ncer
ned.
’
CJEU
Vinc
enzo
Man
fred
i v L
loyd
A
dria
tico
Ass
icur
azio
ni S
pA,
Ant
onio
Can
nito
v F
ondi
aria
Sai
Sp
A a
nd N
icol
ò Tr
icar
ico
and
Pasq
ualin
a M
urgo
lo v
Ass
italia
Sp
A
Join
ed C
ases
C-2
95/0
4, C
-296
/04,
C-
297/
04 a
nd C
-298
/04
EU:C
:200
6:46
1
13.7
.200
6
Judg
men
t aft
er a
refe
renc
e fo
r a
prel
imin
ary
rulin
g fr
om th
e G
udic
e di
pac
e di
Bito
nto
(Ital
y) o
n th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of
Arti
cle
81 E
C Tr
eaty
.
Abs
ence
of E
U r
ules
— M
embe
r St
ates
’ res
pons
ibili
ty fo
r pr
oced
ural
rul
es —
tim
e lim
its —
Arti
cle
46(6
) APD
(rec
ast)
by
anal
ogy.
Para
. 77:
‘As
was
poi
nted
out
in p
arag
raph
62
of th
is ju
dgm
ent,
in th
e ab
senc
e of
Com
mun
ity r
ules
gov
erni
ng th
e m
atter
, it
is fo
r th
e do
mes
tic le
gal s
yste
m o
f eac
h M
embe
r St
ate
to la
y do
wn
the
deta
iled
proc
edur
al r
ules
gov
erni
ng a
ction
s fo
r sa
fegu
ardi
ng r
ight
s w
hich
indi
vidu
als
deri
ve d
irect
ly fr
om C
omm
unity
law
, pro
vide
d th
at s
uch
rule
s ob
serv
e th
e pr
inci
ples
of
equi
vale
nce
and
effec
tiven
ess.’
CJEU
Sopr
opé
— O
rgan
izaç
ões
de
Calç
ado
Lda
v Fa
zend
a Pú
blic
a
Case
C-3
49/0
7
EU:C
:200
8:74
6
18.1
2.20
08
Judg
men
t aft
er a
refe
renc
e fo
r a
prel
imin
ary
rulin
g fr
om th
e Su
prem
o Tr
ibun
al A
dmin
istr
ativo
(Ita
ly) o
n th
e ri
ghts
of d
efen
ce
in th
e co
ntac
t of t
he G
ener
al T
ax L
aw.
Gen
eral
pri
ncip
le o
f EU
law
— r
ight
s of
the
defe
nce.
Para
s 36-
38: ‘
36. O
bser
vanc
e of
the
righ
ts o
f the
def
ence
is a
gen
eral
pri
ncip
le o
f Com
mun
ity la
w w
hich
app
lies
whe
re th
e au
thor
ities
are
min
ded
to a
dopt
a m
easu
re w
hich
will
adv
erse
ly a
ffect
an
indi
vidu
al.
37. I
n ac
cord
ance
with
that
pri
ncip
le, t
he a
ddre
ssee
s of
dec
isio
ns w
hich
sig
nific
antly
affe
ct th
eir
inte
rest
s m
ust b
e pl
aced
in
a po
sitio
n in
whi
ch th
ey c
an e
ffecti
vely
mak
e kn
own
thei
r vi
ews
as re
gard
s th
e in
form
ation
on
whi
ch th
e au
thor
ities
inte
nd
to b
ase
thei
r de
cisi
on. T
hey
mus
t be
give
n a
suffi
cien
t per
iod
of ti
me
in w
hich
to d
o so
[…].
38. T
he a
utho
ritie
s of
the
Mem
ber
Stat
es a
re s
ubje
ct to
that
obl
igati
on w
hen
they
take
dec
isio
ns w
hich
com
e w
ithin
th
e sc
ope
of C
omm
unity
law
, eve
n th
ough
the
Com
mun
ity le
gisl
ation
app
licab
le d
oes
not e
xpre
ssly
pro
vide
for
such
a
proc
edur
al re
quire
men
t. A
s re
gard
s th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of th
at p
rinc
iple
and
, in
parti
cula
r, th
e pe
riod
s w
ithin
whi
ch th
e ri
ghts
of t
he d
efen
ce m
ust b
e ex
erci
sed,
it m
ust b
e st
ated
that
, whe
re th
ose
peri
ods
are
not,
as
in th
e m
ain
proc
eedi
ngs,
fix
ed b
y Co
mm
unity
law
, the
y ar
e go
vern
ed b
y na
tiona
l law
on
cond
ition
, firs
t, th
at th
ey a
re th
e sa
me
as th
ose
to w
hich
in
divi
dual
s or
und
erta
king
s in
com
para
ble
situ
ation
s un
der
natio
nal l
aw a
re e
ntitle
d an
d, s
econ
dly,
that
they
do
not m
ake
it im
poss
ible
in p
racti
ce o
r ex
cess
ivel
y di
fficu
lt to
exe
rcis
e th
e ri
ghts
of d
efen
ce c
onfe
rred
by
the
Com
mun
ity le
gal o
rder
.’
CJEU
— C
-32/
95, C
omm
issi
on
v Li
sres
tal a
nd O
ther
s;
CJEU
— C
-462
/98,
Med
iocu
rso
v Co
mm
issi
on.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A61994CJ0013http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130d55963e14d0978426abc70d56ada525e28.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4Och4Se0?text=&docid=56476&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=481928http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130d55963e14d0978426abc70d56ada525e28.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4Och4Se0?text=&docid=56476&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=481928http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130d55963e14d0978426abc70d56ada525e28.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4Och4Se0?text=&docid=56476&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=481928http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130d55963e14d0978426abc70d56ada525e28.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4Och4Se0?text=&docid=56476&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=481928http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130d55963e14d0978426abc70d56ada525e28.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4Och4Se0?text=&docid=56476&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=481928http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130d55963e14d0978426abc70d56ada525e28.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4Och4Se0?text=&docid=56476&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=481928http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=73993&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=184299http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=73993&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=184299
-
8 — CJ - Evidence and credibility assessment in the context of the Common European Asylum System
Cour
tCa
se n
ame/
refe
renc
e/da
teRe
leva
nce/
key
wor
ds/m
ain
poin
tsCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
Mek
i Elg
afai
i and
Noo
r Elg
afaj
i v
Staa
tsse
cret
aris
van
Justi
tie
Case
C-4
65/0
7
EU:C
:200
9:94
17.2
.200
9
Judg
men
t aft
er a
refe
renc
e fo
r a
prel
imin
ary
rulin
g fr
om th
e Ra
ad v
an S
tate
(Net
herl
ands
) on
the
rela
tions
hip
of A
rticl
e 15
(c)
QD
and
Arti
cle
3 EC
HR
and
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
the
term
s ‘in
divi
dual
thre
at’ a
nd ‘i
ndis
crim
inat
e vi
olen
ce’ i
n A
rticl
e 15
(c) Q
D.
Stan
dard
of p
roof
— s
ubsi
diar
y pr
otec
tion
— A
rticl
e 15
(c) Q
D.
Para
. 43:
‘Hav
ing
rega
rd to
all
of th
e fo
rego
ing
cons
ider
ation
s, th
e an
swer
to th
e qu
estio
ns re
ferr
ed is
that
Arti
cle
15(c
) of
the
Dire
ctive
, in
conj
uncti
on w
ith A
rticl
e 2(
e) th
ereo
f, m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d as
mea
ning
that
:
— th
e ex
iste
nce
of a
ser
ious
and
indi
vidu
al th
reat
to th
e lif
e or
per
son
of a
n ap
plic
ant f
or s
ubsi
diar
y pr
otec
tion
is n
ot s
ubje
ct
to th
e co
nditi
on th
at th
at a
pplic
ant a
dduc
e ev
iden
ce th
at h
e is
spe
cific
ally
targ
eted
by
reas
on o
f fac
tors
par
ticul
ar to
his
pe
rson
al c
ircum
stan
ces;
— th
e ex
iste
nce
of s
uch
a th
reat
can
exc
eptio
nally
be
cons
ider
ed to
be
esta
blis
hed
whe
re th
e de
gree
of i
ndis
crim
inat
e vi
olen
ce c
hara
cter
isin
g th
e ar
med
con
flict
taki
ng p
lace
— a
sses
sed
by th
e co
mpe
tent
nati
onal
aut
hori
ties
befo
re w
hich
an
appl
icati
on fo
r su
bsid
iary
pro
tecti
on is
mad
e, o
r by
the
cour
ts o
f a M
embe
r St
ate
to w
hich
a d
ecis
ion
refu
sing
suc
h an
app
licati
on is
refe
rred
— re
ache
s su
ch a
hig
h le
vel t
hat s
ubst
antia
l gro
unds
are
sho
wn
for
belie
ving
that
a c
ivili
an, r
etur
ned
to th
e re
leva
nt c
ount
ry
or, a
s th
e ca
se m
ay b
e, to
the
rele
vant
regi
on, w
ould
, sol
ely
on a
ccou
nt o
f his
pre
senc
e on
the
terr
itory
of t
hat c
ount
ry o
r re
gion
, fac
e a
real
ris
k of
bei
ng s
ubje
ct to
that
thre
at.’
CJEU
(Gra
nd
Cham
ber)
Aydi
n Sa
laha
din
Abd
ulla
and
O
ther
s v
Bund
esre
publ
ik
Deu
tsch
land
Join
ed C
ases
C-1
75/0
8, C
-176
/08,
C-
178/
08 a
nd C
-179
/08
EU:C
:201
0:10
5
2.3.
2010
Judg
men
t aft
er a
refe
renc
e fo
r a
prel
imin
ary
rulin
g fr
om B
unde
sver
wal
tung
sger
icht
(Ger
man
y) o
n ce
ssati
on o
f ref
ugee
st
atus
on
the
basi
s of
Arti
cle
11 Q
D.
Prin
cipl
es fo
r th
e as
sess
men
t of e
vide
nce
— c
lose
and
rig
orou
s sc
rutin
y —
vig
ilanc
e an
d ca
re.
Para
s 88-
90: ‘
88. B
y co
ntra
st, t
he s
tand
ard
whi
ch m
ust t
hen
guid
e th
e as
sess
men
t of t
he e
lem
ents
pre
sent
doe
s no
t var
y,
eith
er a
t the
sta
ge o
f the
exa
min
ation
of a
n ap
plic
ation
for
refu
gee
stat
us o
r at
the
stag
e of
the
exam
inati
on o
f the
que
stion
of
whe
ther
that
sta
tus
shou
ld b
e m
aint
aine
d, w
hen,
aft
er th
e ci
rcum
stan
ces
whi
ch le
d to
the
gran
ting
of th
at s
tatu
s ha
ve
ceas
ed to
exi
st, o
ther
circ
umst
ance
s w
hich
may
hav
e gi
ven
rise
to a
wel
l-fou
nded
fear
of a
cts
of p
erse
cutio
n ar
e as
sess
ed.
89. A
t bot
h of
thos
e st
ages
of t
he e
xam
inati
on, t
he a
sses
smen
t rel
ates
to th
e sa
me
ques
tion
of w
heth
er o
r no
t the
es
tabl
ishe
d ci
rcum
stan
ces
cons
titut
e su
ch a
thre
at th
at th
e pe
rson
con
cern
ed m
ay re
ason
ably
fear
, in
the
light
of h
is
indi
vidu
al s
ituati
on, t
hat h
e w
ill in
fact
be
subj
ecte
d to
act
s of
per
secu
tion.
90. T
hat a
sses
smen
t of t
he e
xten
t of t
he r
isk
mus
t, in
all
case
s, b
e ca
rrie
d ou
t with
vig
ilanc
e an
d ca
re, s
ince
wha
t are
at i
ssue
ar
e is
sues
rela
ting
to th
e in
tegr
ity o
f the
per
son
and
to in
divi
dual
libe
rties
, iss
ues
whi
ch re
late
to th
e fu
ndam
enta
l val
ues
of
the
Uni
on.’
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=76788&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=112779http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=76788&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=112779http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130de07a15e0a572e47cb97528b0f5129179a.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4Obx8Te0?text=&docid=75296&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=371645http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130de07a15e0a572e47cb97528b0f5129179a.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4Obx8Te0?text=&docid=75296&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=371645http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130de07a15e0a572e47cb97528b0f5129179a.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4Obx8Te0?text=&docid=75296&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=371645
-
CJ - Evidence and credibility assessment in the context of the Common European Asylum System — 9
Cour
tCa
se n
ame/
refe
renc
e/da
teRe
leva
nce/
key
wor
ds/m
ain
poin
tsCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
Virg
inie
Pon
tin v
T-C
omal
ux S
A
Case
C-6
3/08
EU:C
:200
9:66
6
29.1
0.20
09
Judg
men
t aft
er a
refe
renc
e fo
r a
prel
imin
ary
rulin
g fr
om th
e Tr
ibun
al d
u tr
avai
l d’E
sch-
sur-
Alz
ette
(Lux
embo
urg)
on
lega
lity
of re
stri
ction
s to
lega
l rem
edie
s fo
llow
ing
dism
issa
l of p
regn
ant w
orke
rs.
Effec
tive
judi
cial
pro
tecti
on —
pri
ncip
les
of e
quiv
alen
ce a
nd e
ffecti
vene
ss —
tim
e lim
its.
Para
s 43-
49: ‘
43. A
s re
gard
s th
e pr
inci
ple
of e
ffecti
ve ju
dici
al p
rote
ction
of a
n in
divi
dual
’s rig
hts
unde
r Com
mun
ity la
w, i
t is
sett
led
case
-law
that
the
deta
iled
proc
edur
al ru
les
gove
rnin
g ac
tions
for s
afeg
uard
ing
an in
divi
dual
’s rig
hts
unde
r Com
mun
ity
law
mus
t be
no le
ss fa
vour
able
than
thos
e go
vern
ing
sim
ilar d
omes
tic a
ction
s (p
rinci
ple
of e
quiv
alen
ce) a
nd m
ust n
ot re
nder
pr
actic
ally
impo
ssib
le o
r exc
essi
vely
diffi
cult
the
exer
cise
of r
ight
s co
nfer
red
by C
omm
unity
law
(prin
cipl
e of
effe
ctive
ness
) […
].
44. T
hose
requ
irem
ents
of e
quiv
alen
ce a
nd e
ffecti
vene
ss e
mbo
dy th
e ge
nera
l obl
igati
on o
n th
e M
embe
r St
ates
to e
nsur
e ju
dici
al p
rote
ction
of a
n in
divi
dual
’s r
ight
s un
der
Com
mun
ity la
w. T
hey
appl
y bo
th a
s re
gard
s th
e de
sign
ation
of t
he c
ourt
s an
d tr
ibun
als
havi
ng ju
risd
ictio
n to
hea
r an
d de
term
ine
actio
ns b
ased
on
Com
mun
ity la
w a
nd a
s re
gard
s th
e de
finiti
on o
f de
taile
d pr
oced
ural
rul
es […
].
45. T
he p
rinc
iple
of e
quiv
alen
ce re
quire
s th
at th
e na
tiona
l rul
e at
issu
e be
app
lied
with
out d
istin
ction
, whe
ther
the
infr
inge
men
t alle
ged
is o
f Com
mun
ity la
w o
r na
tiona
l law
, whe
re th
e pu
rpos
e an
d ca
use
of a
ction
are
sim
ilar
[…].
How
ever
, th
at p
rinc
iple
is n
ot to
be
inte
rpre
ted
as re
quir
ing
Mem
ber
Stat
es to
ext
end
thei
r m
ost f
avou
rabl
e ru
les
to a
ll ac
tions
br
ough
t in
the
field
of e
mpl
oym
ent l
aw […
]. In
ord
er to
est
ablis
h w
heth
er th
e pr
inci
ple
of e
quiv
alen
ce h
as b
een
com
plie
d w
ith, i
t is
for
the
natio
nal c
ourt
, whi
ch a
lone
has
dire
ct k
now
ledg
e of
the
proc
edur
al r
ules
gov
erni
ng a
ction
s in
the
field
of
dom
estic
law
, to
dete
rmin
e w
heth
er th
e pr
oced
ural
rul
es in
tend
ed to
ens
ure
that
the
righ
ts d
eriv
ed b
y in
divi
dual
s fr
om
Com
mun
ity la
w a
re s
afeg
uard
ed u
nder
dom
estic
law
com
ply
with
that
pri
ncip
le a
nd to
con
side
r bo
th th
e pu
rpos
e an
d th
e es
senti
al c
hara
cter
istic
s of
alle
gedl
y si
mila
r do
mes
tic a
ction
s […
]. Fo
r th
at p
urpo
se, t
he n
ation
al c
ourt
mus
t con
side
r w
heth
er th
e ac
tions
con
cern
ed a
re s
imila
r as
rega
rds
thei
r pu
rpos
e, c
ause
of a
ction
and
ess
entia
l cha
ract
eris
tics
[…].
46. I
t is
appa
rent
from
cas
e-la
w th
at in
ord
er to
dec
ide
whe
ther
pro
cedu
ral r
ules
are
equ
ival
ent t
he n
ation
al c
ourt
mus
t es
tabl
ish
obje
ctive
ly, i
n th
e ab
stra
ct, w
heth
er th
e ru
les
at is
sue
are
sim
ilar
taki
ng in
to a
ccou
nt th
e ro
le p
laye
d by
thos
e ru
les
in th
e pr
oced
ure
as a
who
le, t
he c
ondu
ct o
f tha
t pro
cedu
re a
nd a
ny s
peci
al fe
atur
es o
f tho
se r
ules
[…].
47. A
s re
gard
s th
e pr
inci
ple
of e
ffecti
vene
ss, i
t is
appa
rent
from
the
Cour
t’s c
ase-
law
that
cas
es w
hich
rais
e th
e qu
estio
n w
heth
er a
nati
onal
pro
cedu
ral p
rovi
sion
rend
ers
the
exer
cise
of a
n in
divi
dual
’s r
ight
s un
der
the
Com
mun
ity le
gal o
rder
pr
actic
ally
impo
ssib
le o
r ex
cess
ivel
y di
fficu
lt m
ust s
imila
rly
be a
naly
sed
by re
fere
nce
to th
e ro
le o
f tha
t pro
visi
on in
the
proc
edur
e, it
s co
nduc
t and
its
spec
ial f
eatu
res,
vie
wed
as
a w
hole
, bef
ore
the
vari
ous
natio
nal i
nsta
nces
. In
that
con
text
, it i
s ne
cess
ary
to ta
ke in
to c
onsi
dera
tion,
whe
re re
leva
nt, t
he p
rinc
iple
s w
hich
lie
at th
e ba
sis
of th
e na
tiona
l leg
al s
yste
m, s
uch
as th
e pr
otec
tion
of th
e ri
ghts
of t
he d
efen
ce, t
he p
rinc
iple
of l
egal
cer
tain
ty a
nd th
e pr
oper
con
duct
of t
he p
roce
edin
gs.
48. T
he C
ourt
has
thus
reco
gnis
ed th
at it
is c
ompa
tible
with
Com
mun
ity la
w to
lay
dow
n re
ason
able
tim
e lim
its fo
r br
ingi
ng
proc
eedi
ngs
in th
e in
tere
sts
of le
gal c
erta
inty
, sin
ce s
uch
time-
limits
are
not
liab
le to
rend
er p
racti
cally
impo
ssib
le o
r ex
cess
ivel
y di
fficu
lt th
e ex
erci
se o
f rig
hts
conf
erre
d by
Com
mun
ity la
w […
]. A
s re
gard
s lim
itatio
n pe
riod
s, th
e Co
urt h
as a
lso
held
that
, in
resp
ect o
f nati
onal
legi
slati
on w
hich
com
es w
ithin
the
scop
e of
Com
mun
ity la
w, i
t is
for
the
Mem
ber
Stat
es to
es
tabl
ish
thos
e pe
riod
s in
the
light
of,
inte
r al
ia, t
he s
igni
fican
ce fo
r th
e pa
rties
con
cern
ed o
f the
dec
isio
ns to
be
take
n, th
e co
mpl
exiti
es o
f the
pro
cedu
res
and
of th
e le
gisl
ation
to b
e ap
plie
d, th
e nu
mbe
r of
per
sons
who
may
be
affec
ted
and
any
othe
r pu
blic
or
priv
ate
inte
rest
s w
hich
mus
t be
take
n in
to c
onsi
dera
tion
[…].
49. L
astly
, as
is a
ppar
ent f
rom
sett
led
case
-law
, it i
s no
t for
the
Cour
t to
rule
on
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
nati
onal
law
, tha
t bei
ng
excl
usiv
ely
for t
he n
ation
al c
ourt
, whi
ch m
ust,
in th
e pr
esen
t cas
e, d
eter
min
e w
heth
er th
e re
quire
men
ts o
f equ
ival
ence
and
eff
ectiv
enes
s ar
e m
et b
y th
e pr
ovis
ions
of t
he re
leva
nt n
ation
al le
gisl
ation
[…].
How
ever
, the
Cou
rt, w
hen
givi
ng a
pre
limin
ary
rulin
g, m
ay, w
here
app
ropr
iate
, pro
vide
cla
rifica
tion
desi
gned
to g
ive
the
natio
nal c
ourt
gui
danc
e in
its
inte
rpre
tatio
n […
].’
CJEU
— C
-268
/06,
Impa
ct v
Min
ister
fo
r Agr
icul
ture
and
Foo
d an
d O
ther
s;
CJEU
— C
-326
/96,
B.S
. Lev
ez v
T.H
. Je
nnin
gs (H
arlo
w P
ools
) Ltd
.;
CJEU
— C
-78/
98, S
hirle
y Pr
esto
n an
d O
ther
s v
Wol
verh
ampt
on H
ealth
care
N
HS
Trus
t and
Oth
ers
and
Dor
othy
Fl
etch
er a
nd O
ther
s v
Mid
land
Ban
k pl
c.;
CJEU
— C
-426
/05,
Tel
e2
Tele
com
mun
icati
on G
mBH
v
Tele
kom
-Con
trol
-Kom
mis
sion
;
CJEU
— C
-255
/00,
Gru
ndig
Ital
iana
Sp
A v
Min
ister
o de
lle F
inan
ze;
CJEU
— C
-2/0
6, W
illy
Kem
pter
KG
v
Hau
ptzo
llam
t Ham
burg
-Jon
as;
CJEU
— C
-349
/07,
Sop
ropé
—
Org
aniza
ções
de
Calç
ado
Lda
v Fa
zend
a Pú
blic
a;
CJEU
— C
-378
/07
to C
-380
/07,
Ki
riaki
Ang
elid
aki a
nd O
ther
s v
Org
anis
mos
Nom
arch
iaki
s Au
todi
oiki
sis
Reth
ymni
s, C
hrik
leia
G
iann
oudi
v D
imos
Ger
opot
amou
an
d G
eorg
ios
Kara
bous
anos
and
So
fokl
is M
icho
poul
os v
Dim
os
Ger
opot
amou
;
CJEU
— C
-53/
04, C
ristia
no M
arro
su
and
Gia
nluc
a Sa
rdin
o v
Azie
nda
Osp
edal
iera
Osp
edal
e Sa
n M
artin
o di
Gen
ova
e Cl
inic
he U
nive
rsita
rie
Conv
enzi
onat
e;
CJEU
— C
-180
/04,
And
rea
Vass
allo
v
Azie
nda
Osp
edal
iera
Osp
edal
e Sa
n M
artin
o di
Gen
ova
e Cl
inic
he
Uni
vers
itarie
Con
venz
iona
te;
CJEU
— C
-364
/07,
Spy
ridon
Va
ssila
kis
and
Oth
ers
v D
imos
Ke
rkyr
aion
.
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=73372&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=482344
-
10 — CJ - Evidence and credibility assessment in the context of the Common European Asylum System
Cour
tCa
se n
ame/
refe
renc
e/da
teRe
leva
nce/
key
wor
ds/m
ain
poin
tsCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
Brah
im S
amba
Dio
uf v
Min
istr
e du
Tra
vail,
de
l’Em
ploi
et d
e l’I
mm
igra
tion
Case
C-6
9/10
EU:C
:201
1:52
4
28.7
.201
1
Judg
men
t aft
er a
refe
renc
e fo
r a p
relim
inar
y ru
ling
from
the
Trib
unal
adm
inis
trati
f (Lu
xem
bour
g) o
n th
e rig
ht to
an
effec
tive
rem
edy
in th
e co
ntex
t of a
ccel
erat
ed p
roce
dure
und
er A
rticl
e 39
APD
and
und
er A
rticl
es 6
and
13
ECH
R.
Righ
t to
an e
ffecti
ve re
med
y —
gen
eral
prin
cipl
e of
EU
law
— A
rticl
e 47
EU
Cha
rter
— th
orou
gh re
view
of l
egal
ity —
revi
ew
on b
oth
the
fact
s an
d th
e la
w —
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
nati
onal
law
in c
onfo
rmity
with
EU
law
— ti
me
limits
.
Para
s 48-
50, 5
4-61
and
66-
68: ‘
48. T
he q
uesti
on re
ferr
ed th
us c
once
rns
the
right
of a
n ap
plic
ant f
or a
sylu
m to
an
effec
tive
rem
edy
befo
re a
cou
rt o
r trib
unal
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith A
rticl
e 39
of D
irecti
ve 2
005/
85 a
nd, i
n th
e co
ntex
t of E
urop
ean
Uni
on
(‘EU
’) la
w, w
ith th
e pr
inci
ple
of e
ffecti
ve ju
dici
al p
rote
ction
.
49. T
hat p
rinci
ple
is a
gen
eral
prin
cipl
e of
EU
law
to w
hich
exp
ress
ion
is n
ow g
iven
by
Arti
cle
47 o
f the
Cha
rter
of
Fund
amen
tal R
ight
s of
the
Euro
pean
Uni
on […
].
50. I
t is
ther
efor
e ap
prop
riate
to d
eter
min
e w
heth
er th
e sy
stem
put
in p
lace
by
the
natio
nal r
ules
at i
ssue
in th
e m
ain
proc
eedi
ngs
obse
rves
the
prin
cipl
e of
effe
ctive
judi
cial
pro
tecti
on a
nd, i
n pa
rticu
lar,
whe
ther
the
fact
that
ther
e is
no
appe
al
agai
nst t
he d
ecis
ion
to e
xam
ine
the
appl
icati
on fo
r asy
lum
und
er a
n ac
cele
rate
d pr
oced
ure
deni
es th
e ap
plic
ant f
or a
sylu
m
his
right
to a
n eff
ectiv
e re
med
y. […
]
54. I
t is
appr
opria
te, i
n th
at re
gard
, to
reca
ll th
at, i
n Ca
se C
-13/
01 S
afal
ero
[200
3] E
CR I8
679,
par
agra
phs
54 to
56,
the
Cour
t he
ld th
at th
e pr
inci
ple
of e
ffecti
ve ju
dici
al p
rote
ction
of t
he ri
ghts
whi
ch th
e EU
lega
l ord
er c
onfe
rs o
n in
divi
dual
s is
to b
e co
nstr
ued
as n
ot p
recl
udin
g na
tiona
l leg
isla
tion
unde
r whi
ch a
n in
divi
dual
can
not b
ring
cour
t pro
ceed
ings
to c
halle
nge
a de
cisi
on ta
ken
by th
e pu
blic
aut
horiti
es, w
here
ther
e is
ava
ilabl
e to
that
indi
vidu
al a
lega
l rem
edy
whi
ch e
nsur
es re
spec
t for
th
e rig
hts
conf
erre
d on
him
by
EU la
w a
nd w
hich
ena
bles
him
to o
btai
n a
judi
cial
dec
isio
n fin
ding
the
prov
isio
n in
que
stion
to
be in
com
patib
le w
ith E
U la
w.
55. T
he d
ecis
ion
rela
ting
to th
e pr
oced
ure
to b
e ap
plie
d fo
r the
exa
min
ation
of t
he a
pplic
ation
for a
sylu
m, v
iew
ed s
epar
atel
y an
d in
depe
nden
tly fr
om th
e fin
al d
ecis
ion
whi
ch g
rant
s or
reje
cts
the
appl
icati
on, i
s a
mea
sure
pre
para
tory
to th
e fin
al
deci
sion
on
the
appl
icati
on.
56. A
ccor
ding
ly, t
he a
bsen
ce o
f a re
med
y at
that
sta
ge o
f the
pro
cedu
re d
oes
not c
onsti
tute
an
infr
inge
men
t of t
he ri
ght t
o an
effe
ctive
rem
edy,
pro
vide
d, h
owev
er, t
hat t
he le
galit
y of
the
final
dec
isio
n ad
opte
d in
an
acce
lera
ted
proc
edur
e —
and
, in
par
ticul
ar, t
he re
ason
s w
hich
led
the
com
pete
nt a
utho
rity
to re
ject
the
appl
icati
on fo
r asy
lum
as
unfo
unde
d —
may
be
the
subj
ect o
f a th
orou
gh re
view
by
the
natio
nal c
ourt
, with
in th
e fr
amew
ork
of a
n ac
tion
agai
nst t
he d
ecis
ion
reje
cting
the
appl
icati
on.
57. A
s re
gard
s ju
dici
al re
view
with
in th
e fr
amew
ork
of a
sub
stan
tive
actio
n ag
ains
t the
dec
isio
n re
jecti
ng th
e ap
plic
ation
fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tecti
on, t
he e
ffecti
vene
ss o
f tha
t acti
on w
ould
not
be
guar
ante
ed if
— b
ecau
se o
f the
impo
ssib
ility
of
brin
ging
an
appe
al u
nder
Arti
cle
20(5
) of t
he L
aw o
f 5 M
ay 2
006
— th
e re
ason
s w
hich
led
the
Min
iste
r for
Lab
our,
Empl
oym
ent a
nd Im
mig
ratio
n to
exa
min
e th
e m
erits
of t
he a
pplic
ation
und
er a
n ac
cele
rate
d pr
oced
ure
coul
d no
t be
the
subj
ect o
f jud
icia
l rev
iew
. In
a si
tuati
on s
uch
as th
at a
t iss
ue in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s, th
e re
ason
s re
lied
on b
y th
at M
inis
ter
in o
rder
to u
se th
e ac
cele
rate
d pr
oced
ure
are
in fa
ct th
e sa
me
as th
ose
whi
ch le
d to
that
app
licati
on b
eing
reje
cted
. Suc
h a
situ
ation
wou
ld re
nder
revi
ew o
f the
lega
lity
of th
e de
cisi
on im
poss
ible
, as
rega
rds
both
the
fact
s an
d th
e la
w […
].
58. W
hat i
s im
port
ant,
ther
efor
e, is
that
the
reas
ons
justi
fyin
g th
e us
e of
an
acce
lera
ted
proc
edur
e m
ay b
e eff
ectiv
ely
chal
leng
ed a
t a la
ter s
tage
bef
ore
the
natio
nal c
ourt
and
revi
ewed
by
it w
ithin
the
fram
ewor
k of
the
actio
n th
at m
ay b
e br
ough
t aga
inst
the
final
dec
isio
n cl
osin
g th
e pr
oced
ure
rela
ting
to th
e ap
plic
ation
for a
sylu
m. I
t wou
ld n
ot b
e co
mpa
tible
w
ith E
U la
w if
nati
onal
rule
s su
ch a
s th
ose
deriv
ing
from
Arti
cle
20(5
) of t
he L
aw o
f 5 M
ay 2
006
wer
e to
be
cons
true
d as
pr
eclu
ding
all
judi
cial
revi
ew o
f the
reas
ons
whi
ch le
d th
e co
mpe
tent
adm
inis
trati
ve a
utho
rity
to e
xam
ine
the
appl
icati
on fo
r as
ylum
und
er a
n ac
cele
rate
d pr
oced
ure.
CJEU
— C
-279
/09,
DEB
D
euts
chla
nd E
nerg
ieha
ndel
s un
d Be
ratu
ngsg
esel
lsch
aft m
bH
v Bu
ndes
repu
blik
Deu
tsch
land
;
CJEU
— C
-457
/09,
Cla
ude
Char
try
v Be
lgia
n St
ate;
CJEU
— C
-13/
01, S
afal
ero
Srl
v Pr
efett
o di
Gen
ova;
CJEU
— C
-506
/04,
Gra
ham
J.
Wils
on v
Ord
re d
es a
voca
ts d
u ba
rrea
u de
Lux
embo
urg;
CJEU
— C
-378
/07
to C
-380
/07,
Ki
riaki
Ang
elid
aki a
nd O
ther
s v
Org
anis
mos
Nom
arch
iaki
s A
utod
ioik
isis
Ret
hym
nis,
Chr
ikle
ia
Gia
nnou
di v
Dim
os G
erop
otam
ou
and
Geo
rgio
s Ka
rabo
usan
os a
nd
Sofo
klis
Mic
hopo
ulos
v D
imos
G
erop
otam
ou;
CJEU
— C
-268
/06,
Impa
ct
v M
inis
ter f
or A
gric
ultu
re a
nd F
ood
and
Oth
ers.
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=108325&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=313554http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=108325&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=313554http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=108325&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=313554
-
CJ - Evidence and credibility assessment in the context of the Common European Asylum System — 11
Cour
tCa
se n
ame/
refe
renc
e/da
teRe
leva
nce/
key
wor
ds/m
ain
poin
tsCa
ses c
ited
CJEU
Brah
im S
amba
Dio
uf v
Min
istr
e du
Tra
vail,
de
l’Em
ploi
et d
e l’I
mm
igra
tion
Case
C-6
9/10
EU:C
:201
1:52
4
28.7
.201
1
Judg
men
t aft
er a
refe
renc
e fo
r a p
relim
inar
y ru
ling
from
the
Trib
unal
adm
inis
trati
f (Lu
xem
bour
g) o
n th
e rig
ht to
an
effec
tive
rem
edy
in th
e co
ntex
t of a
ccel
erat
ed p
roce
dure
und
er A
rticl
e 39
APD
and
und
er A
rticl
es 6
and
13
ECH
R.
Righ
t to
an e
ffecti
ve re
med
y —
gen
eral
prin
cipl
e of
EU
law
— A
rticl
e 47
EU
Cha
rter
— th
orou
gh re
view
of l
egal
ity —
revi
ew
on b
oth
the
fact
s an
d th
e la
w —
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
nati
onal
law
in c
onfo
rmity
with
EU
law
— ti
me
limits
.
Para
s 48-
50, 5
4-61
and
66-
68: ‘
48. T
he q
uesti
on re
ferr
ed th
us c
once
rns
the
right
of a
n ap
plic
ant f
or a
sylu
m to
an
effec
tive
rem
edy
befo
re a
cou
rt o
r trib
unal
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith A
rticl
e 39
of D
irecti
ve 2
005/
85 a
nd, i
n th
e co
ntex
t of E
urop
ean
Uni
on
(‘EU
’) la
w, w
ith th
e pr
inci
ple
of e
ffecti
ve ju
dici
al p
rote
ction
.
49. T
hat p
rinci
ple
is a
gen
eral
prin
cipl
e of
EU
law
to w
hich
exp
ress
ion
is n
ow g
iven
by
Arti
cle
47 o
f the
Cha
rter
of
Fund
amen
tal R
ight
s of
the
Euro
pean
Uni
on […
].
50. I
t is
ther
efor
e ap
prop
riate
to d
eter
min
e w
heth
er th
e sy
stem
put
in p
lace
by
the
natio
nal r
ules
at i
ssue
in th
e m
ain
proc
eedi
ngs
obse
rves
the
prin
cipl
e of
effe
ctive
judi
cial
pro
tecti
on a
nd, i
n pa
rticu
lar,
whe
ther
the
fact
that
ther
e is
no
appe
al
agai
nst t
he d
ecis
ion
to e
xam
ine
the
appl
icati
on fo
r asy
lum
und
er a
n ac
cele
rate
d pr
oced
ure
deni
es th
e ap
plic
ant f
or a
sylu
m
his
right
to a
n eff
ectiv
e re
med
y. […
]
54. I
t is
appr
opria
te, i
n th
at re
gard
, to
reca
ll th
at, i
n Ca
se C
-13/
01 S
afal
ero
[200
3] E
CR I8
679,
par
agra
phs
54 to
56,
the
Cour
t he
ld th
at th
e pr
inci
ple
of e
ffecti
ve ju
dici
al p
rote
ction
of t
he ri
ghts
whi
ch th
e EU
lega
l ord
er c
onfe
rs o
n in
divi
dual
s is
to b
e co
nstr
ued
as n
ot p
recl
udin
g na
tiona
l leg
isla
tion
unde
r whi
ch a
n in
divi
dual
can
not b
ring
cour
t pro
ceed
ings
to c
halle
nge
a de
cisi
on ta
ken
by th
e pu
blic
aut
horiti
es, w
here
ther
e is
ava
ilabl
e to
that
indi
vidu
al a
lega
l rem
edy
whi
ch e
nsur
es re
spec
t for
th
e rig
hts
conf
erre
d on
him
by
EU la
w a
nd w
hich
ena
bles
him
to o
btai
n a
judi
cial
dec
isio
n fin
ding
the
prov
isio
n in
que
stion
to
be in
com
patib
le w
ith E
U la
w.
55. T
he d
ecis
ion
rela
ting
to th
e pr
oced
ure
to b
e ap
plie
d fo
r the
exa
min
ation
of t
he a
pplic
ation
for a
sylu
m, v
iew
ed s
epar
atel
y an
d in
depe
nden
tly fr
om th
e fin
al d
ecis
ion
whi
ch g
rant
s or
reje
cts
the
appl
icati
on, i
s a
mea
sure
pre
para
tory
to th
e fin
al
deci
sion
on
the
appl
icati
on.
56. A
ccor
ding
ly, t
he a
bsen
ce o
f a re
med
y at
that
sta
ge o
f the
pro
cedu
re d
oes
not c
onsti
tute
an
infr
inge
men
t of t
he ri
ght t
o an
effe
ctive
rem
edy,
pro
vide
d, h
owev
er, t
hat t
he le
galit
y of
the
final
dec
isio
n ad
opte
d in
an
acce
lera
ted
proc
edur
e —
and
, in
par
ticul
ar, t
he re
ason
s w
hich
led
the
com
pete
nt a
utho
rity
to re
ject
the
appl
icati
on fo
r asy
lum
as
unfo
unde
d —
may
be
the
subj
ect o
f a th
orou
gh re
view
by
the
natio
nal c
ourt
, with
in th
e fr
amew
ork
of a
n ac
tion
agai
nst t
he d
ecis
ion
reje
cting
the
appl
icati
on.
57. A
s re
gard
s ju
dici
al re
view
with
in th
e fr
amew
ork
of a
sub
stan
tive
actio
n ag
ains
t the
dec
isio
n re
jecti
ng th
e ap
plic
ation
fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tecti
on, t
he e
ffecti
vene
ss o
f tha
t acti
on w
ould
not
be
guar
ante
ed if
— b
ecau
se o
f the
impo
ssib
ility
of
brin
ging
an
appe
al u
nder
Arti
cle
20(5
) of t
he L
aw o
f 5 M
ay 2
006
— th
e re
ason
s w
hich
led
the
Min
iste
r for
Lab
our,
Empl
oym
ent a
nd Im
mig
ratio
n to
exa
min
e th
e m
erits
of t
he a
pplic
ation
und
er a
n ac
cele
rate
d pr
oced
ure
coul
d no
t be
the
subj
ect o
f jud
icia
l rev
iew
. In
a si
tuati
on s
uch
as th
at a
t iss
ue in
the
mai
n pr
ocee
ding
s, th
e re
ason
s re
lied
on b
y th
at M
inis
ter
in o
rder
to u
se th
e ac
cele
rate
d pr
oced
ure
are
in fa
ct th
e sa
me
as th
ose
whi
ch le
d to
that
app
licati
on b
eing
reje
cted
. Suc
h a
situ
ation
wou
ld re
nder
revi
ew o
f the
lega
lity
of th
e de
cisi
on im
poss
ible
, as
rega
rds
both
the
fact
s an
d th
e la
w […
].
58. W
hat i
s im
port
ant,
ther
efor
e, is
that
the
reas
ons
justi
fyin
g th
e us
e of
an
acce
lera
ted
proc
edur
e m
ay b
e eff
ectiv
ely
chal
leng
ed a
t a la
ter s
tage
bef
ore
the
natio
nal c
ourt
and
revi
ewed
by
it w
ithin
the
fram
ewor
k of
the
actio
n th
at m
ay b
e br
ough
t aga
inst
the
final
dec
isio
n cl
osin
g th
e pr
oced
ure
rela
ting
to th
e ap
plic
ation
for a
sylu
m. I
t wou
ld n
ot b
e co
mpa
tible
w
ith E
U la
w if
nati
onal
rule
s su
ch a
s th
ose
deriv
ing
from
Arti
cle
20(5
) of t
he L
aw o
f 5 M
ay 2
006
wer
e to
be
cons
true
d as
pr
eclu
ding
all
judi
cial
revi
ew o
f the
reas
ons
whi
ch le
d th
e co
mpe
tent
adm
inis
trati
ve a
utho
rity
to e
xam
ine
the
appl
icati
on fo
r as
ylum
und
er a
n ac
cele
rate
d pr
oced
ure.
CJEU
— C
-279
/09,
DEB
D
euts
chla
nd E
nerg
ieha
ndel
s un
d Be
ratu
ngsg
esel
lsch
aft m
bH
v Bu
ndes
repu
blik
Deu
tsch
land
;
CJEU
— C
-457
/09,
Cla
ude
Char
try
v Be
lgia
n St
ate;
CJEU
— C
-13/
01, S
afal
ero
Srl
v Pr
efett
o di
Gen
ova;
CJEU
— C
-506
/04,
Gra
ham
J.
Wils
on v
Ord
re d
es a
voca
ts d
u ba
rrea
u de
Lux
embo
urg;
CJEU
— C
-378
/07
to C
-380
/07,
Ki
riaki
Ang
elid
aki a
nd O
ther
s v
Org
anis
mos
Nom
arch
iaki
s A
utod
ioik
isis
Ret
hym
nis,
Chr
ikle
ia
Gia
nnou
di v
Dim
os G
erop
otam
ou
and
Geo
rgio
s Ka
rabo
usan
os a
nd
Sofo
klis
Mic
hopo
ulos
v D
imos
G
erop
otam
ou;
CJEU
— C
-268
/06,
Impa
ct
v M
inis
ter f
or A
gric
ultu
re a
nd F
ood
and
Oth
ers.
Cour
tCa
se n
ame/
refe
renc
e/da
teRe
leva
nce/
key
wor
ds/m
ain
poin
tsCa
ses c
ited
59. I
n th
at re
gard
, it s
houl
d be
not
ed th
at it
is n
ot fo
r the
Cou
rt, i
n th
e co
ntex
t of a
refe
renc
e fo
r a p
relim
inar
y ru
ling,
to g
ive
a ru
ling
on th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of p
rovi
sion
s of
nati
onal
law
or t
o de
cide
whe
ther
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n gi
ven
by th
e na
tiona
l cou
rt
of th
ose
prov
isio
ns is
cor
rect
. Ind
eed,
onl
y th
e na
tiona
l cou
rts
are
com
pete
nt to
dec
ide
upon
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
dom
estic
la
w […
].
60. H
owev
er, i
n th
at c
onte
xt, a
tten
tion
shou
ld a
lso
be d
raw
n to
the
requ
irem
ent t
hat n
ation
al la
w b
e in
terp
rete
d in
co
nfor
mity
with
EU
law
, whi
ch p
erm
its n
ation
al c
ourt
s, fo
r the
matt
ers
with
in th
eir j
uris
dicti
on, t
o en
sure
the
full
effec
tiven
ess
of E
U la
w w
hen
they
det
erm
ine
the
disp
utes
bef
ore
them
[…].
The
prin
cipl
e th
at n
ation
al la
w m
ust b
e in
terp
rete
d in
con
form
ity w
ith E
U la
w re
quire
s na
tiona
l cou
rts
to d
o w
hate
ver l
ies
with
in th
eir j
uris
dicti
on, t
akin
g th
e w
hole
bo
dy o
f dom
estic
law
into
con
side
ratio
n an
d ap
plyi
ng th
e in
terp
reta
tive
met
hods
reco
gnis
ed b
y do
mes
tic la
w, w
ith a
vie
w to
en
surin
g th
at th
e di
recti
ve in
que
stion
is fu
lly e
ffecti
ve a
nd a
chie
ving
an
outc
ome
cons
iste
nt w
ith th
e ob
jecti
ve p
ursu
ed b
y it
[…].
61. T
he o
bjec
tive
of D
irecti
ve 2
005/
85 is
to e
stab
lish
a co
mm
on s
yste
m o
f saf
egua
rds
serv
ing
to e
nsur
e th
at th
e G
enev
a Co
nven
tion
and
the
fund
amen
tal r
ight
s ar
e fu
lly c
ompl
ied
with
. The
righ
t to
an e
ffecti
ve re
med
y is
a fu
ndam
enta
l prin
cipl
e of
EU
law
. In
orde
r for
that
righ
t to
be e
xerc
ised
effe
ctive
ly, t
he n
ation
al c
ourt
mus
t be
able
to re
view
the
mer
its o
f the
reas
ons
whi
ch le
d th
e co
mpe
tent
adm
inis
trati
ve a
utho
rity
to h
old
the
appl
icati
on fo
r int
erna
tiona
l pro
tecti
on to
be
unfo
unde
d or
m
ade
in b
ad fa
ith, t
here
bei
ng n
o irr
ebutt
able
pre
sum
ption
as
to th
e le
galit
y of
thos
e re
ason
s. It
is a
lso
with
in th
e fr
amew
ork
of th
at re
med
y th
at th
e na
tiona
l cou
rt h
earin
g th
e ca
se m
ust e
stab
lish
whe
ther
the
deci
sion
to e
xam
ine
an a
pplic
ation
for
asyl
um u
nder
an
acce
lera
ted
proc
edur
e w
as ta
ken
in c
ompl
ianc
e w
ith th
e pr
oced
ures
and
bas
ic g
uara
ntee
s la
id d
own
in
Chap
ter I
I of D
irecti
ve 2
005/
85, a
s pr
ovid
ed fo
r in
Arti
cle
23(4
) of t
he d
irecti
ve. [
…].
66. A
s re
gard
s th
e fa
ct th
at th
e tim
e lim
its fo
r brin
ging
an
actio
n is
15
days
in th
e ca
se o
f an
acce
lera
ted
proc
edur
e, w
hils
t it
is 1
mon
th in
the
case
of a
dec
isio
n ad
opte
d un
der t
he o
rdin
ary
proc
edur
e, th
e im
port
ant p
oint
, as
the
Adv
ocat
e G
ener
al h
as
stat
ed in
poi
nt 6
3 of
his
Opi
nion
, is
that
the
perio
d pr
escr
ibed
mus
t be
suffi
cien
t in
prac
tical
term
s to
ena
ble
the
appl
ican
t to
prep
are
and
brin
g an
effe
ctive
acti
on.
67. W
ith re
gard
to a
bbre
viat
ed p
roce
dure
s, a
15-
day
time
limit
for b
ringi
ng a
n ac
tion
does
not
see
m, g
ener
ally
, to
be
insu
ffici
ent i
n pr
actic
al te
rms
to p
repa
re a
nd b
ring
an e
ffecti
ve a
ction
and
app
ears
reas
onab
le a
nd p
ropo
rtion
ate
in re
latio
n to
the
right
s an
d in
tere
sts
invo
lved
.
68. I
t is,
how
ever
, for
the
natio
nal c
ourt
to d
eter
min
e —
sho
uld
that
tim
e lim
its p
rove
, in
a gi
ven
situ
ation
, to
be in
suffi
cien
t in
vie
w o
f the
circ
umst
ance
s —
whe
ther
that
ele
men
t is
such
as
to ju
stify
, on
its o
wn,
uph
oldi
ng th
e ac
tion
brou
ght i
ndire
ctly
ag
ains
t the
dec
isio
n to
exa
min
e th
e ap
plic
ation
for a
sylu
m u
nder
an
acce
lera
ted
proc
edur
e, s
o th
at, i
n up
hold
ing
the
actio
n,
the
natio
nal c
ourt
wou
ld o
rder
that
the
appl
icati
on b
e ex
amin
ed u
nder
the
ordi
nary
pro
cedu
re.’
CJEU
(Gra
nd
Cham
ber)
NS
v Se
cret
ary
of S
tate
for t
he
Hom
e D
epar
tmen
t and
ME
and
Oth
ers
v Re
fuge
e A
pplic
ation
s Co
mm
issi
oner
, Min
iste
r for
Ju
stice
, Equ
ality
and
Law
Ref
orm
Join
ed C
ases
C-4
11/1
0 an
d C-
493/
10
EU:C
:201
1:86
5
21.1
2.20
11
Judg
men
t aft
er a
refe
renc
e fo
r a
prel
imin
ary
rulin
g fr
om th
e Co
urt o
f App
eal (
Engl
and
and
Wal
es) (
Civi
l Div
isio
n) (U
nite
d Ki
ngdo
m) o
n th
e co
ncep
t of ‘
safe
cou
ntri
es’ a
nd th
e re
butt
able
pre
sum
ption
of c
ompl
ianc
e w
ith fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts
by
Mem
ber
Stat
es u
nder
the
Dub
lin II
Reg
ulati
on.
Gen
eral
pri
ncip
les
of E
U la
w —
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
nati
onal
law
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith E
U la
w.
Para
. 77:
‘Acc
ordi
ng to
sett
led
case
-law
, the
Mem
ber
Stat
es m
ust n
ot o
nly
inte
rpre
t the
ir n
ation
al la
w in
a m
anne
r co
nsis
tent
with
Eur
opea
n U
nion
law
but
als
o m
ake
sure
they
do
not r
ely
on a
n in
terp
reta
tion
of a
n in
stru
men
t of s
econ
dary
le
gisl
ation
whi
ch w
ould
be
in c
onfli
ct w
ith th
e fu
ndam
enta
l rig
hts
prot
ecte
d by
the
Euro
pean
Uni
on le
gal o
rder
or
with
the
othe
r ge
nera
l pri
ncip
les
of E
urop
ean
Uni
on la
w […
].’
CJEU
— C
-101
/01,
Bod
il Li
ndqv
ist;
CJEU
— C
-305
/05,
Ord
re d
es
barr
eaux
fran
coph
ones
et
germ
anop
hone
and
Oth
ers
v Co
nsei
l des
min
istr
es.
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=108325&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=313554http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=108325&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=313554http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=108325&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=313554http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=117187&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=164523http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=117187&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=164523http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=117187&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=164523http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/d
