- BY Colin Yeo
Sufficiency of protection and EU refugee law
THANKS FOR READING
Older content is locked
A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more
TAKE FREE MOVEMENT FURTHER
By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;
- Single login for personal use
- FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
- Access to all Free Movement blog content
- Access to all our online training materials
- Access to our busy forums
- Downloadable CPD certificates
Just a quick alert for now (I’ll come back and update this when I get a chance) but an interesting looking new case was reported last week on the generally unexplored issue of the concept of sufficiency of protection, invented in the House of Lords case of Horvath, and its reflection in EU law in the Qualification Directive. The case is NA and VA (protection: Article 7(2) Qualification Directive) India [2015] UKUT 432 (IAC) and the official headnote reads:
The word “generally” in Article 7(2) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC (the Qualification Directive) denotes normally or in the generality of cases. Thus the operation of an effective legal system for the detection, prosecution and punishment of acts constituting persecution or serious harm and access to such system by the claimant may not, in a given case, amount to protection. Article 7(2) is non-prescriptive in nature. It prescribes neither minima nor maxima. The duty imposed on states to take “reasonable steps” imports the concepts of margin of appreciation and proportionality.
The case emphasises that protection must be effective for the particular individual concerned; a general “willingness” does not amount to sufficient protection.
SHARE
