V. Asylum Reception Conditions Directive 2013/33/EU

Peek, Markus; Tsourdi, Lilian

doi:10.5771/9783845259208-1382

Cited by 4 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this context, the chapter answers 1458 For the drafting history, see e.g. Hruschka and Maiani (2016), 1574-1575Peek and Tsourdi (2016), 1412-1413, 1419, 1423Mananashvili (2016), 734-739. 1459 See e.g. Wilsher (2011), 191-192;Velluti (2014) the following questions: when immigration detention is considered lawful (Title II), whether it must be proportional and necessary (Title III), when it is permissible (Title IV), for how long it is allowed (Title V), where it should be effected (Title VI) and what procedural safeguards shall be granted to detained foreigners (Title VII).…”

Section: Scope Of Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…77450/12 (2017), §76. See also Peek andTsourdi (2016), 1426. detaining children in an immigration context must be very carefully considered by the national authorities'. 1557 The court reiterates that domestic authorities making decisions about depriving children of liberty must take into account the minors' best interest and investigate whether detention is a measure of last resort or whether it may be substituted with other, less drastic measures.…”

Section: Necessity and Proportionalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Seeking Convergence? A Comparative Analysis of the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union on Seeking Asylum

Lysienia

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 2009 two courts have been shaping human rights of asylum seekers in Europe: the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Side by side, the courts examined who is protected from refoulement, when and how asylum seekers can be detained and what remedies they should have access to. Did they seek convergence in their asylum case-law or paid no attention to each other’s jurisprudence? Did they establish a coherent standard of the asylum seekers’ protection in Europe? Judicial dialogue between the ECtHR and CJEU in the area of asylum is at the heart of this study. The book offers also a comprehensive overview of the asylum case-law of the two courts and identifies the main convergences and divergences in their approach to protection against refoulement, immigration detention and effective remedies.

show abstract

Section: Scope Of Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Necessity and Proportionalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Seeking Convergence? A Comparative Analysis of the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union on Seeking Asylum

Lysienia

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Peek and Tsourdi claim that Article 21 requires Member States to set a standard on vulnerable applicants in their national formal legislation and that it should not be dealt with by implementing authorities or through circulars. 817 The Return Directive 818 also presents a list of vulnerable persons. It follows that, unlike the recast Reception Conditions Directive, the list of vulnerable persons presented in Article 3(9) of the Return Directive is exhaustive.…”

Section: Reception Conditions Directive 2013/33/eu (Recast): Vulnerable Asylum Applicants With Special Reception Needsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…' Peek and Tsourdi submit that where such types of housing cannot meet the specific reception needs of applicants, Member States should not accommodate them in such premises. 848 Furthermore, Mem-ber States are obliged, as far as possible to accommodate dependent adult applicants with special reception needs with close adult relatives who are already present in the Member States and who are responsible for them. 849 However, the Directive allows for derogations regarding the modalities of material reception conditions.…”

Section: Materials Reception Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…943 Peek and Tsourdi submit that the notion 'specific situation of a person' in the context of education for children enshrined in Article 14(3) of the recast Reception Conditions Directive, may refer to vulnerability and special reception needs as a result of physical or mental impairment or because of a traumatic event children have experienced. 944 As regards unaccompanied minors, the recast Qualification Directive defines them as:…”

Section: Reception Conditions For Children and Unaccompanied Minorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The common European asylum system

Yabasun¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website.• The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review.• The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement:

show abstract

Waste of Paper or Useful Tool? The Potential of the Temporary Protection Directive in the Current “Refugee Crisis”

Gluns¹,

Wessels²

2017

Refugee Survey Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

show abstract

V. Asylum Reception Conditions Directive 2013/33/EU

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Seeking Convergence? A Comparative Analysis of the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union on Seeking Asylum

Seeking Convergence? A Comparative Analysis of the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union on Seeking Asylum

The common European asylum system

Waste of Paper or Useful Tool? The Potential of the Temporary Protection Directive in the Current “Refugee Crisis”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About