Those of immigrants arrived in Europe towards their countries of origin or transient concentration fields abroad have suffered this summer a surely definitive judicial wand.
The EU Court of Justice (TJUE, Affairs C-758/24 and C-759/24) dismantles those of Giorgia Meloni, ignominiously backed by the president of the commission, Ursula von der Leyen.
And goes beyond the summary that was initially known (El Pais, August 2). It puts the purpose of the involutive reform of Brussels to give a reactionary bias to the directives by lowering the protection of the refugees; to the concept of “third safe country” and the reception of other “innovative ideas” such as the “hubs” prison in other needy countries, than October 17, 2024.
Mass deportations usually extreme the speed of the procedure to the detriment of the rights of those affected; They take advantage of normative interstices to cut refugee defenses; and weaken the control of judges about government abuses.
The resolution of the TJUE in favor of the Court of Rome and against the Italian Government puts foot against that degradation. It amplifies its previous protectionist jurisprudence of the weak. It requires that to consider a (that is, the one in which inhuman torture or penalties and treatment are not practiced) to be able to return immigrants, not only should it be in its entire geography (without admitting the exception of a territorial portion). It must also be for all “categories of people”, in the face of a fat eye of transalpine legislation.
In addition, Attack short of, they do not detail, or justify, or inform those affected on what are the data through which they convert to insecure countries (Bangladés, in this case) into “insurance”. The data must be concrete and public, and at least incorporate the ACNUR and the European Asylum Support Office on the country in question. To guarantee “sufficient and adequate access” to these sources and thus allow the affected to “defend their rights”, “submit the matter to the competent judge” and facilitate this “exercise control” of the procedure, says the sentence.
This judicial reasoning is built on a liberal-professional interpretation of the different regulations of the Union on the, which has already resulted in two other exemplary sentences: the 514/2025 and the C-406/22. The problem would come if those legal texts were their only support, because directives and regulations can be subject to relatively easy modification from the commission and the Council, today already too sensitive to the ultra -right.
But here comes the wonderful: the position of the great luxembourg room hangs directly from the EU Fundamental Rights Charter (article 47), which “constitutes a reaffirmation of the principle of effective judicial protection.” It can be invoked by the affected one without further regulatory mediation. The Plenary Chamber dictates that this article “is enough for itself and it is not necessary to be developed by other community or national norms” to confer to individuals an invocable subjective right as such. ” And also relies on other texts of social roots and historical duration: the European Convention on Human Rights, of 1950; the Statute of Refugees of Geneva of 1951; and the protocol on the same approved in New York in 1967.
It is a lethal power torpedo to the flotation line of the reactionary turn in the migratory policy of Brussels, so solicitous with it. Because modifying the letter would mean reforming the treaty, that is, the primary right or constitutionality block Community What requires not only unanimity, but a complex, heavy, controversial and long reform procedure: titanic and uncertain. While only one of the 27 resist will never happen.
