EUROPEAN ASYLUM LAW AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM LAW AND POLICY IN EUROPE
Volume 8
Editors
Elspeth Guild
Kingsley Napley Solicitors, London,
Centre for Migration Law, Katholieke Universiteit, Nijmegen
Jan Niessen
Migration Policy Group, Brussels
The series is a venue for books on European immigration and asylum law and
policies where academics, policy makers, law practitioners and others look to find
detailed analysis of this dynamic field. Works in the series will start from a
European perspective. The increased co-operation within the European Union and
the Council of Europe on matters related to immigration and asylum requires the
publication of theoretical and empirical research. The series will contribute to well-
informed policy debates by analysing and interpreting the evolving European
legislation and its effects on national law and policies. The series brings together the
various stakeholders in these policy debates: the legal profession, researchers,
employers, trade unions, human rights and other civil society organisations.
The titles published in this series are listed at the end of this volume.
European Asylum Law
and International Law
by
Hemme Battjes
MARTINUS NIJHOFF PUBLISHERS
LEIDEN / BOSTON
2006
A C.I.P. Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
Printed on acid-free paper.
ISBN 90 04 15087 0

© 2006 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Academic Publishers,
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming,
recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by
Brill Academic Publishers
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222
Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.
Printed and bound in The Netherlands.
“Treaty interpretation is not an exact science but an art.”
T.O. Elias, The Modern Law of Treaties, Leiden: Sijthoff 1974, p. 72.
uxori
vii
References to provisions of the Procedures Directive address the Proposal
Procedures Directive, council doc. 14203/04 of 9 November 2004 (see
number [60]). On 1 December 2005, the Council Directive 2005/85/EC of
1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States
for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJEC [2005] L326, 13-34)
was adopted. The numbering of the provisions of the proposal for the
Procedures Directive and Directive 2005/85/EC correspond as follows.
Proposal Directive 2005/85
Article 1 1
2(a)-(i) 2(a)-(i)
2(k) 2(j)
2(m) 2(k)
33
3A 4

45
56
67
78
89
910
9A 11
10 12
11 13
12 14
13 15
14 16
15 17
17 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
29 28
30 29
30A 30
30B 31
33 32
33A 33
34 34

35 35
35A 36
36 37
37 38
38 39
40A 40
41 41
42 42
43 43
43A 44
44 45
45 46
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The writing of this book took far more time than I could have imagined
beforehand. Perhaps boundless optimism is a prerequisite for embarking
upon such a project. Research and exchange of thoughts were necessary in
order to finish the writing of this book. I thank the constitutional and
administrative law section of the law faculty of the Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam for allowing me to devote my time to this book so often rather
than to more common interests. Special thanks are due to Ben Vermeulen
and Thomas Spijkerboer for the frequent discussions and comment on the
manuscript, as well as for their encouragements to lecture and write articles
on the subject, which greatly helped me to shape my thoughts and brought
structure to the work. I further thank those who read and commented on the
manuscript (in alphabetical order): Pieter Boeles, Kees Groenendijk, Kay
Hailbronner, Martin Kuijer, Gregor Noll and Sarah van Walsum. I thank
Niels Jak for his help in compiling the indices. I finally thank Alastair
McInness for correcting the English.
I completed the manuscript in June 2005, and was only able to incorporate
later developments in exceptional cases.

Amsterdam, 5 November 2005
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii
Table of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 The object of inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Questions and order of discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 “Asylum” 5
1.4 International asylum law 6
1.4.1 Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4.2 Rules and means of interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.4.2.1 The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties . 14
1.4.2.2 Treaty monitoring bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.4.2.3 Concluding remarks 25
1.5 European asylum law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.5.1 The genesis of European asylum law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.5.2 Features of Community law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
1.5.3 Instruments of European asylum law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
1.5.4 Institutions and decision-making procedures 39
1.5.5 Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2 The working of international asylum law in European law . . . . . . . . 59
2.1 The Member States as states party to international treaty law. . 59
2.1.1 The Vienna Treaty Convention rules on treaty conflicts . 59
2.1.2 Conciliatory interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
2.1.3
Jus cogens 62
2.1.4 Article 307 TEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

2.1.5 Insoluble conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
2.1.6 The European Court of Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
2.1.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
ix
2.2 The working of international asylum law within the
Community legal order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
2.2.1 Effect as international law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
2.2.2 General principles of Community law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
2.2.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
2.2.2.2 Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
2.2.2.3 Scope of application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
2.2.2.4 Intensity of the test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
2.2.2.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
2.2.3 Article 63 TEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
2.2.4 References in secondary law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
2.2.5 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
2.3 The Charter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
2.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
2.3.2 General provisions on Charter provisions and
international law 108
2.3.3 Scope of application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
2.3.4 Human dignity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
2.3.5 The right to asylum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
2.3.6 The prohibition of refoulement 114
2.3.7 The legal effect of the Charter 116
2.3.8 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
2.4 Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
3 The Treaty basis for asylum legislation 139
3.1 Title IV in outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
3.2 The “area of freedom, security and justice” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

3.3 The scope of Community powers on asylum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
3.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
3.3.2 The relation between Article 63(1), 63(2) and
63(3) TEC 144
3.3.3 Asylum (Article 63(1) TEC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
3.3.4 Temporary protection, subsidiary protection and
sudden inflows (Articles 63(2) and 64(2) TEC) . . . . . . . 151
3.3.5 Immigration (Article 63(3) TEC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
3.3.6 External competencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
3.3.7 The exception of Article 64(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
x
3.3.8 Legal basis outside Title IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
3.3.9 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
3.4 Harmonisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
3.5 Geographical scope of European asylum legislation . . . . . . . . . 165
3.6 Community powers on asylum and international asylum law . . 166
3.7 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
3.8 The Constitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
3.8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
3.8.2 The policy objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
3.8.3 Personal and geographical scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
3.8.4 Harmonisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
3.8.5 Substantive scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
3.8.6 The Protocols on the United Kingdom and Ireland and
on Denmark 183
3.8.7 Concluding remarks 183
4 The Common European Asylum System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
4.1 The concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
4.2 The lay-out 196
4.3 Legal basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

4.4 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
4.5 Minimum standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
4.6 Harmonisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
4.7 Personal scope 205
4.8 Territorial scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
4.9 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
5 Qualification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
5.1
CEAS statuses and international law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
5.2 Definition elements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
5.3 Risk and proof 224
5.3.1 Refugee and subsidiary protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
5.3.2 Temporary protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
5.4 Harm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
5.4.1 Harmful acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
xi
5.4.1.1 Persecution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
5.4.1.2 Serious harm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
5.4.1.3 Temporary protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
5.4.1.4 Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
5.4.2 Actors of harm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
5.4.3 Protection and actors of protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
5.4.4 The Convention grounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
5.4.5 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
5.5 Alienage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
5.6 Grounds for refusal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
5.6.1 Article 1F RC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
5.6.2 Article 33(2) RC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
5.6.3 Article 1D and 1E RC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
5.6.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

5.7 Cessation and withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
5.8 The relation between the
CEAS protection statuses 269
5.8.1 The complementary character of subsidiary and
temporary protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
5.8.2 Hierarchy and concurrence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
5.9 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
6 Asylum procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
6.2 Asylum procedures at first instance 291
6.2.1 International law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
6.2.2 The set-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
6.2.3 The organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
6.2.4 Basic principles and guarantees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
6.2.4.1 Scope of application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
6.2.4.2 Standards on the ‘normal procedure’ and the
‘normal border procedure’ 308
6.2.4.3 Standards on the special procedures . . . . . . . . . . 314
6.2.5 Conclusions 317
6.3 Appeal procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
6.3.1 Standards of international and Community law . . . . . . . 318
6.3.2
CEAS provisions on appeal in asylum procedures . . . . . . 327
6.3.3 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
xii
6.4 Grounds for refusal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
6.4.1 Inadmissibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
6.4.2 Withdrawn applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
6.4.3 Manifestly unfounded applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
6.4.4 Subsequent applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336

6.4.4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336
6.4.4.2 Subsequent applications lodged during the
processing of the former application. . . . . . . . . . 337
6.4.4.3 Repeated applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
6.4.4.4 Applications by dependants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
6.4.4.5 Applications after withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
6.4.4.6 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
6.4.5 The safe country of origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
6.4.5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
6.4.5.2 The designation 346
6.4.5.3 The application 351
6.4.5.4 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
6.4.6 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358
6.5 Termination procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360
6.5.1 International law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360
6.5.2 Termination of refugee status 361
6.5.3 Termination of temporary protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
6.5.4 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
6.6 Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364
7 Allocation and safe third country arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385
7.2 Allocation criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386
7.2.1 Allocation of applicants within the
European Economic Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386
7.2.2 Allocation of temporary protection beneficiaries . . . . . . 391
7.2.3 Allocation to non-Member States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392
7.2.4 Concluding remarks 393
7.3 Allocation mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394
7.4 The exception of the safe third country in international law . . . 397
7.4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397

7.4.2 Conditions on the third state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398
xiii
7.4.3 Assessment of the safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407
7.4.3.1 The individual and the generic approach . . . . . . 407
7.4.3.2 The principle of inter-state trust as a rebuttable
presumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
7.4.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418
7.5 The exception of the safe third country in European law . . . . . 418
7.5.1 The Dublin Regulation and the Dublin Convention. . . . . 419
7.5.2 The safe third country concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
7.5.3 The country of first asylum concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426
7.5.4 Member States as countries of first asylum . . . . . . . . . . 427
7.5.5 The safe third neighbouring country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428
7.5.6 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431
8 Secondary rights 447
8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447
8.2 Refugee Convention rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448
8.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448
8.2.2 Qualifications of refugees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448
8.2.3 The nature of refugee status determination 455
8.2.3.1 The declaratory and constitutivist views . . . . . . 455
8.2.3.2 The Refugee Convention text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457
8.2.3.3 Object and purpose laid down in the Preamble . 459
8.2.3.4 Object and purpose of individual provisions . . . 460
8.2.3.5 Concluding remarks 465
8.2.4 The obligation to determine refugee status . . . . . . . . . . . 466
8.2.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 468
8.3 International law on family unity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469
8.4 Refugee status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474
8.4.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474

8.4.2 Refugee Convention benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475
8.4.3 Family unity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477
8.4.4 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485
8.5 Alternative refugee statuses 486
8.5.1
Article 14(6) QD refugee status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486
8
.5.2 Article 24(1) QD refugee status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 488
8.6 Subsidiary protection status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490
8.7 Applicant status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493
xiv
8.7.1 Entitlement to Refugee Convention benefits . . . . . . . . . . 493
8.7.2 Reception standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496
8.7.2.1 (Un)lawful presence, illegal entry and the
freedom of movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496
8.7.2.2 Other reception standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499
8.7.2.3 Reduction of benefits and procedures. . . . . . . . . 502
8.7.3 Family unity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503
8.7.4 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506
8.8 Temporary protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507
8.8.1 Temporary protection and Convention refugee status . . . 507
8.8.2 Temporary protection status benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509
8.8.3 Family unity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510
8.8.4 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512
8.9 Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512
9 Judicial supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531
9.1 Judicial protection of Community rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531
9.1.1 The principle of effective protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531
9.1.2 Direct appeal to the Court of Justice 532
9.1.3 Requirements on remedies in domestic courts. . . . . . . . . 534

9.1.4 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537
9.2 Direct and indirect effect of European law on asylum . . . . . . . 537
9.2.1 Indirect effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538
9.2.2 Direct effect 539
9.2.2.1 The conditions for direct effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . 540
9.2.2.2 Article 63 TEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 542
9.2.2.3 Secondary law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543
9.2.2.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550
9.2.3 Obligations during the transposition period . . . . . . . . . . 551
9.2.4 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553
9.3 Adjudication of asylum law by the Court of Justice . . . . . . . . . 554
9.3.1 Preliminary rulings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 554
9.3.2 Review of validity of Community legislation on asylum 555
9.3.3 Review of Member State acts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561
9.3.4 The implications of Article 68 TEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571
9.3.4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571
9.3.4.2 Courts of first instance and interpretation . . . . . 573
xv
9.3.4.3 Courts of first instance and invalid
Community acts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573
9.3.4.4 Courts whose decisions are not subject to review 577
9.3.4.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577
9.3.5 Exceptions to the obligation to refer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577
9.3.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579
9.4 The Luxembourg Courts and domestic courts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 580
9.5 Strasbourg review of European asylum law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584
9.5.1 Review of Member State acts based on Community
law that leaves discretion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585
9.5.2 Member State acts based on Community law that leaves
no discretion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585

9.5.3 Review of acts by Community institutions . . . . . . . . . . . 590
9.5.4 Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592
9.6 Conclusions 592
10 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 603
10.1 European asylum law and international asylum law . . . . . . . . . 603
10.2 The Community legislation 606
10.3 Future developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 614
Bibliography 619
Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 641
Treaties and Community legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 655
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 675
xvi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: The Common European Asylum System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Table 2: The safe third country concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431
Table 3: The incremental system of Refugee Convention benefits . . . . . 469
xvii

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABRvS Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak Raad van State (Administrative
Adjudication Section of the Council of State of The
Netherlands)
A-G Advocate-General
Art. Article
BVerfG Bundesverfassungsgericht (Constitutional Court of Germany)
CAT Convention Against Torture
CaT Committee against Torture
CCPR Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
CEAS Common European Asylum System
cf. compare

CfE Constitution for Europe
CFI Court of First Instance
CMLRev Common Market Law Review
DAR Dublin Application Regulation
DC Dublin Convention
doc. document
DR Dublin Regulation
EC European Community
ECR European Court reports
ECJ (European) Court of Justice
ECHR European Convention of Human Rights
ECmHR European Commission of Human Rights
ECtHR European Court of Human Rights
EEA European Economic Area
e.g. for example
EJIL European Journal of International Law
EJML European Journal of Migration and Law
ELRev European Law Review
EP European Parliament
EPL European Public Law
ETS European Treaty Series
EU European Union
ExCom Executive Committee of the Program of the High
Commissioner
f. and further
FRD Family Reunification Directive
xix
HR Hoge Raad (Supreme Court of The Netherlands)
HRC Human Rights Committee
HL House of Lords of England

ibid. in the same place
i.e. that is
ICJ International Court of Justice
ICLQ International and Comparative Law Quarterly
IJRL International Journal of Refugee Law
JV Jurisprudentie Vreemdelingenrecht
LIEI Legal Issues of European Integration
n. footnote or endnote
OJ Official Journal
par. paragraph
PD Procedures Directive
QD Qualification Directive
RC Refugee Convention
RV Rechtspraak Vreemdelingenrecht
RSD Reception Standards Directive
SC Supreme Court of the United States of America
Ser. Series
TEC Treaty on European Community
TEU Treaty on European Union
ToA Treaty of Amsterdam
ToM Treaty of Maastricht
TPD Temporary Protection Directive
UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights
UK United Kingdom
UN United Nations
UNGA United Nations General Assembly
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for the Refugees
UNTS United Nations Treaty Series
Vol. Volume
VTC Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

xx
Chapter 1
Introduction
In this Chapter, the object of inquiry is defined. Further, the relevant sources
of international and European law are introduced, and the method and means
of interpretation applied in this study are discussed.
1.1 The object of inquiry
[1] Asylum law has been enriched in the last few years by a number of mea-
sures of the European Community that address the legal relation between per-
sons in need of protection and the Member States. These measures make up
the Common European Asylum System – a body of law that covers all aspects
of asylum law: qualification for protection, procedures for qualification, allo-
cation, and secondary rights. Although its impact on asylum law and practice
in the Member States remains to be seen, this system merits description and
analysis, if only because of its comprehensiveness.
The description and analysis of European asylum law in this study focus
on the relation with international law. The Refugee Convention and some other
instruments of international law entitle certain categories of aliens to protec-
tion from expulsion and to secondary rights. The major part of the Community
measures on asylum implicitly or explicitly addresses interpretation and appli-
cation of this international law. I describe and analyse the rights and obliga-
tions laid down in the Community measures, and compare them to those set
out in international law.
The relation between Community and international law on asylum raises
some complex questions. According to the Treaty on European Community,
these measures must be “in accordance” with the Refugee Convention and
other treaty law on asylum. This requirement seems to establish a clear hier-
archical relation between international law and Community legislation on asy-
lum. Yet the relevant instruments of international law bind the Member States,
not the Community. It is therefore unclear to what extent European law should

secure “accordance” – it may imply an obligation to ensure that the whole
body of international law on asylum is complied with, or merely prohibit
Community legislation that is in outright violation of international law.
Further, the requirement of “accordance” applies only to part of European
legislation, which begs the question whether other legislation may deviate
from international law. The consequences of the transfer of powers on asylum
to the Community for the obligations of the Member States under internatio-
nal law are another matter. Could European legislation influence their obliga-
tions under international law? If not, what should happen in case of a collision
between rules of European and international asylum law?
[2] The relation between European law on asylum and international law can be
approached from different points of view. A perfectly suitable one would be
the position of the Member States of the Community. As the grant of asylum
is “only the normal exercise of territorial sovereignty” of states,
1
transfer of
powers on asylum to the Community infringes on the sovereignty of the
Member States. Therefore, their position merits attention. Another possibility
would be the position of the Community itself. The project of legislation on
asylum was undertaken in order to facilitate the abolition of border controls
between Member States.
2
Focusing on the Community would do justice to this
objective of European asylum law. Moreover, the new area of European asy-
lum law has impact on the Community’s very identity. At some points,
European asylum law appears to conceive of the Community as the recipient
of requests for protection. Thus, European asylum legislation speaks of “per-
sons seeking protection in the Community”,
3
and indeed makes it very possi-

ble that a person requesting protection from, say, Greece, is transferred to
Ireland as if the Community, not a state, were approached.
But I have chosen a third alternative: the consequences for the individual
in need of protection. Safeguarding the rights of aliens is also an objective of
European asylum legislation.
4
Other issues such as the division of competen-
cies between the Community and the Member States will also be addressed.
They will not, however, be addressed for their own sake, but only in so far as
they have bearings
on the legal position of the individual.
[3] The analysis is restricted to issues of law. Which instruments count as
“law” and which means and methods of interpretation are applied, will be dis-
cussed in paragraphs 1.4 and 1.5. Here it should be stressed that the analysis
is as far as possible abstracted from policy issues. Policy objectives may have
shaped Community asylum law, but they are addressed only where they enter
the realm of law, especially where they may serve as a means of interpretation.
The same holds true for the decision-making process. Documents reflecting
negotiations are only taken into account when they shed light on enigmatic
provisions. Consequently, projects that have not (yet) resulted in legislation,
such as reception in the region of origin, are not addressed.
This one sided approach also means that the analysis sticks to legal fic-
2 Chapter 1
tions. Thus, the Member States as subjects of Community law, the Community
legislator and the masters of the Treaty on European Community are treated
as if they were separate entities. In fact, representatives of the Member States
make up the organ that adopts Community legislation on asylum, and they are
masters of the Treaty. Undoubtedly, the provisions of the Treaty on European
Community on asylum, Community measures and domestic legislation to a
fair extent all reflect the same policy objectives. To a more politically oriented

mind, upholding the fiction that it concerns completely different entities may
seem a distortion of reality. But there are good reasons to stick to those legal
fictions. First of all, Community law itself imposes these distinctions; apply-
ing them is therefore necessary for a sound legal analysis. Secondly, the poli-
cy background of European asylum law has more than once been well
described.
5
Thirdly, I lack the skills to produce a sound political analysis.
Likewise, empirical issues are ignored as far as possible. Particular rules
may have been adopted with a specific situation in mind – for example, rules
on the issue of agents of protection may be based on the situation in certain
countries such as Somalia or Northern Iraq before the American invasion.
Further, rules may have little meaning in the sense that they could apply to a
relatively small number of people, or conversely have great practical impor-
tance. Such considerations are however absent from this study. Numbers of
protection seekers or recognised refugees, or the reception of protection seek-
ers in proportion to reception elsewhere are not addressed The reasons are
again that I lack the necessary knowledge and skills, and that such considera-
tions are alien to the questions stated.
Furthermore, the present inquiry is, in a sense, a-historical. I address the
body of European asylum law as it is with international asylum law as it is
now. Their historical development is in itself not relevant for assessing their
relation. Thus, it has been convincingly argued that the last decades have
shown a growing tendency to exclude group persecution, and that subsidiary
forms of protection next to refugee protection owe their relevance to an ever
more restrictive application of the refugee definition.
6
Current European asy-
lum law may be seen as an exponent of these developments: no mention is
made of group persecution, and it grants a prominent place to subsidiary pro-

tection. But such considerations are in themselves not relevant for this inquiry.
The historical development of European asylum may explain its present form;
it cannot explain its legal meaning.
[4] Finally, domestic law is discussed when relevant for interpretation of inter-
national law, but legislation on asylum of the Member States does not, in itself,
3Introduction
make part of the object of inquiry. The picture offered in this book is therefore
necessarily incomplete, for Community law and international law presuppose
domestic systems of law for their functioning. But abstraction from the
domestic law systems of the Member States may also have advantages. It
makes it possible to execute a comparison of European with international law
unclouded by notions from domestic law. For example, European asylum law
is very much centred on the issue of residence permits. This entails a distinc-
tion between asylum seekers and persons with a residence permit which is
quite self evident from the point of view of domestic law. But for internatio-
nal law, it is not – it rather distinguishes persons who are in need of protection
from those who are not.
Nor do I address the reception of international or European law into
domestic constitutional law. Hence, I accept and apply the tenets on the wor-
king of European law and of the European Convention of Human Rights with-
in the domestic legal orders that are developed by the Court of Justice and the
European Court of Human Rights without questioning them (cf. numbers [70]
and [36]), although these tenets may not be accepted in some or most Member
States.
7
1.2 Questions and order of discussion
[5] This study of European law on asylum therefore focuses on its relation
with international law, and in particular on the way it affects the legal position
of persons requesting asylum. Neither the development of European asylum
law or international law, nor domestic asylum law of the member states makes

part of this study. The terms “asylum”, “European asylum law” and “interna-
tional asylum law” will be defined in the following paragraphs (paragraphs
1.3, 1.4 and 1.5). Here, I will identify the questions that should be dealt with
in order to assess this relationship properly.
To begin with, we should address the nature of this relationship: (1) how do
the systems of European or Community law and international law affect each
other? This question can be approached from two sides. First, the way interna-
tional law may affect Community law (1a): how can rules of international law
on asylum have effect within the Community legal order? Second, the way
Community law may affect the working of international asylum law (1b): does
European asylum law have consequences for the legal position of the indivi-
dual vis-à-vis the Member States in their capacity as party to the instruments
of international asylum law? Both questions are addressed in Chapter 2.
4 Chapter 1