- BY Colin Yeo
Tribunal gives go ahead for Dublin returns to Malta. Again.
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
The Upper Tribunal again finds that Dublin returns to Malta can go ahead:
(i) There have been significant developments in Malta during recent years. While there may be imperfections in the Maltese asylum decision making processes, these are not sufficient to preclude returns under the Dublin Regulation and, in particular, do not amount to a breach of Article 18 of the EU Charter.
(ii) While Article 18 of the EU Charter confers rights of a procedural nature, the evidence does not establish that these will be infringed in the event of either of the Applicants pursuing a fresh asylum claim in Malta.
(iii) The limitations of the mechanisms available under Maltese law for challenging refusal of asylum decisions do not infringe Article 18 of the EU Charter.
(iv) In judicial review, decisions of the Administrative Court are not binding on the Upper Tribunal: Secretary of State for Justice v RB[2010] UKUT 454 (AAC) applied.
(v) Per curiam : Article 18 of the EU Charter provides an avenue for challenging transfer decisions under the Dublin Regulation.
(vi) Per curiam : Where a Dublin Regulation transfer decision is challenged under Article 18 of the EU Charter, the ECHR “flagrant breach” standard does not apply. Rather, the test is whether there is a real risk of a breach of Article 18.
More Latin, and in the supposedly clear head note too. I leave this here:
Sir E Ryder:Court Reform project must decode legal language for court users.A real challenge for applicants @CourtBasedPSU can help #BCYBC16
— Jess Campbell (@JessCampbe) October 15, 2016
By the by, I think the reference to the appellants’ cases being advanced “without distinction” is a reference to the similarity of the cases rather than the quality of the advocacy (para 1).
SHARE
