Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJakulevičienė, Lyra
dc.date.accessioned2013-12-17T11:54:35Z
dc.date.available2013-12-17T11:54:35Z
dc.date.issued2013-12-17
dc.identifier.urihttps://www3.mruni.eu/ojs/jurisprudence/article/view/45/40
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.mruni.eu/handle/007/10884
dc.description.abstractStarting from 2009, national courts of the EU Member States for the first time gained a “real” right to request the EU Court of Justice for preliminary rulings in asylum matters. First judgments of this Court demonstrate equivocal tendencies: some are blaming the Court for incompetence in asylum matters, others believe that the adoption of authoritative decisions at the European level will assist in developing consistent practice of applying asylum law in the European Union, something that failed at international level due to absence of a single authoritative body to provide guidance on interpretation and application of the 1951 Refugee Convention. Considering that the judgments of the EU Court are part of the EU law, the Member States should develop their national asylum law with due regard being taken to those judgments. By the beginning of 2012, the Court has issued eight judgments on the interpretation of various problematic issues of EU asylum law. This Article analyses the jurisprudence of the EU Court in asylum cases, related to the granting of refugee status and subsidiary protection. It also provides a critical evaluation of those judgments. The main objective of the Article is to familiarise the relevant Lithuanian institutions and lawyers with the first judgments of the EU Court in asylum cases and encourage discussions concerning the application of rules established by the Court in the Lithuanian context. Due to limited size, this Article presents the analysis of two EU Court judgments adopted on interpretation of the 2004 Qualification Directive: Elgafaji v. The Netherlands (2009) dealing with granting of subsidiary protection, and Abdulla and others v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland (2010), dealing with cessation of refugee status. The value of those judgments first of all lies in the guidance they provided to the Member States on such concepts as: protection in a situation of an armed conflict, agents of protection, effectiveness of protection; as well as determination of a relationship between refugee status and subsidiary protection, relationship of the Qualification Directive with the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), also cessation of protection. Elgafaji decision, while quite liberal with regard to persons seeking international protection, is not so liberally applied in the Member States’ practice and does not in itself guarantee positive outcome of the application of a concrete individual fleeing from an armed conflict, or a liberal approach to granting subsidiary protection in the Member States. Based on Elgafaji judgment it is clear that: Art. 15(b) of the Qualification Directive correspond to Art. 3 ECHR, while Art. 15(c) provides additional protection and in that it expands the Member States’ obligations beyond the ECHR to provide protection to persons fleeing in situations of armed conflict [...]en
dc.language.isolten
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.titlePirmųjų Europos Sąjungos Teisingumo Teismo sprendimų prieglobsčio bylose pamokos.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.description.abstract-ltNuo 2009 m. Europos Sąjungos valstybių narių teismai pirmą kartą įgijo realią teisę teikti paklausimus Europos Sąjungos Teisingumo Teismui dėl ES teisės aiškinimo ir taikymo prieglobsčio srityje. Pirmieji Teismo priimti sprendimai rodo dviprasmiškas tendencijas: vieni kaltina teismą nekompetentingumu prieglobsčio klausimais, kiti mano, kad autoritetingo sprendimo priėmimas ne nacionaliniu lygmeniu padės išvystyti teisminę prieglobsčio teisės aiškinimo ir taikymo praktiką Europos Sąjungoje, ko nepavyko pasiekti tarptautiniu mastu. Kadangi ES Teismo sprendimai taip pat yra ES teisės dalis, valstybės narės turėtų vystyti nacionalinę prieglobsčio teisę atsižvelgdamos į teismo sprendimus dėl ES prieglobsčio teisės aiškinimo ir taikymo. Iki 2012 m. pradžios teismas buvo priėmęs aštuonis sprendimus, kuriais aiškinami įvairūs ES prieglobsčio teisės probleminiai klausimai. Šiame straipsnyje apibendrinama ES Teismo praktika prieglobsčio bylose, susijusiose su pabėgėlio statuso ir papildomos apsaugos suteikimu, ir pateikiamas kritiškas Teismo priimtų prejudicinių sprendimų vertinimas. Straipsnio tikslas – supažindinti Lietuvos suinteresuotas institucijas ir pavienius teisininkus su pirmaisiais ES Teismo sprendimais prieglobsčio bylose ir paskatinti diskusiją dėl Teismo sprendimuose nustatytų taisyklių pritaikymo Lietuvoje.en
dc.date.published2012
dc.identifier.aleph000012143en
dc.publication.sourceJurisprudencija, 2012, Nr. 19(2)en
dc.subject.facultyTeisės fakultetasen
dc.subject.keywordPrieglobstisen
dc.subject.keywordEuropos Sąjungos prieglobsčio teisėen
dc.subject.keywordAsylumen
dc.subject.keywordEU asylum lawen
dc.subject.sciencedirection01S - Teisėen


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record