Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2012] All ER (D) 172 (Sep)
Court: Court of Justice of the European Union (Fourth Chamber)
Judge:

Judges Bonichot, President of the Chamber, Prechal, Schiemann, Bay Larsen (Rapporteur), Jarašiunas

Judgment Dates: 27 September 2012

Catchwords

European Union - Applications for asylum - Minimum standards for reception of asylum seekers in member states - Obligation to guarantee asylum seekers minimum reception conditions during procedure of taking charge or taking back by responsible member state - Determining member state obliged to assume financial burden of minimum conditions - Applicants seeking annulment of inter-ministerial circular on ground that contrary to objectives of European provision by excluding asylum seekers from entitlement to temporary tideover allowance in certain circumstances - Council of State seeking preliminary ruling - Whether member state to which application for asylum had been made at its border or in its territor also obliged to grant minimum reception conditions for reception of asylum seekers - Council Directive (EC) 2003/9 - Council Regulation (EC) 343/2003.

The Case

European Union Applications for asylum. The Court of Justice of the European Union, following a reference made in French domestic proceedings made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Council Directive 2003-9 (EC) (laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers in the member states). It held, inter alia, that Council Directive (EC) 2003-09 had to be interpreted as meaning that a member state in receipt of an application for asylum was obliged to grant the minimum conditions for reception of asylum seekers laid down in the Directive even to an asylum seeker in respect of whom it decided, under Council Regulation (EC) 343-2003, to call upon another member state, as the member state responsible for examining his application for asylum, to take charge of or take back that applicant.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.