The European Court of Justice has ruled that admission to asylum proceedings should take place in the country where the asylum seeker arrives.
During the ascent of asylum seekers in 2015 and 2016, EU countries opened their borders so that asylum seekers could move from one country to another in the European Union.
The European Court of Justice has accepted the argument of the Austrian and Slovene governments that they have the right to return asylum seekers to their country of entry. This vote could result in the displacement of asylum seekers who have gone to other countries after joining one of the EU member states. In another case filed by the Court, the Supreme Court Advisor considers the distribution of asylum seekers to be legal among the Member States.
The vote was handed down after a suicide by a Syrian refugee arrived in Croatia from Slovenia and two Afghan refugees who had arrived in Austria via Slovenia and Croatia. Both Austria and Slovenia refused to grant international assistance to these asylum seekers, and they sued the European Court of Justice based on the “Dublin Rules” against the governments of the two countries.
According to the Dublin Rules, when the asylum seeker comes to one of the member states of the Union, the same country is required to apply for asylum and, if they have conditions, give him asylum. The court also ruled that Croatia and Austria were required to meet the asylum seekers’ request for international protection and to allow them to cross the border and enter the territory of another union member without a visa.
Also on Wednesday, August 4 (July 26th), Eve Boot, a senior advisor to the European Court of Justice, the highest judicial authority in the handling of cases involving the union, argued that the mandatory distribution of asylum seekers among the countries of the Union is legal, and these countries are required to comply They are If this is done, there is the possibility of displacing asylum seekers, especially from Greece and Italy to Eastern European countries.
In the Supreme Court of Europe, each member state has an independent judge who is advised by eleven advisers. The role of these advisors is to examine and give an unbiased view of cases that raise new legal points.
The opinion of the Supreme Court Advisor is being sought after the request of the governments of Hungary and Slovakia to cancel this quota. The two countries, with the support of the Polish government, called for the implementation of the Dublin Rules.
According to the representatives of the two countries, the European Union’s decision on the allocation of asylum quotas by all EU countries is contrary to the Union’s treaties and is therefore illegal.
Mrs. Boot did not report this argument, saying that the allocation of asylum seekers was a viable decision that was designed to reduce the unpopular pressure of asylum seekers on the facilities of the two countries, Greece and Italy. As the thousands of asylum seekers move to Europe in 2015, the two countries faced an unprecedented number of asylum seekers who were planning to travel to other EU countries from the two countries.
The decision was made to decide on the allocation of asylum seekers in 2015, but the right-wing governments of Poland and Hungary did not accept this decision. According to them, most asylum seekers are Syrian warriors or other Muslim countries, and their attitude does not coincide with the cultural conditions of Europeans and will cause social problems.
While some EU member states, especially Germany, have welcomed several thousand asylum seekers, the reluctance of some countries to help reduce the pressure of asylum seekers in both Italy and Greece has led to divergences among the member states and concerns about the weakening of the European Union Has come up.
The advice of the High Court Advocates of the European Court of Justice is advisory and not binding, but usually the judges of the court accept and vote on them. The EU court is scheduled to issue its vote after the end of the summer holiday.