The Migration Law Clinic will accept new cases September 2020. The students will work on new cases from October 2020 until February 2021.
If you have suggestions for cases or topics for the Migration Law Clinic, you can contact the Clinic coordinator (firstname.lastname@example.org). See also under ‘For Clients’.
The Migration Law Clinic is currently working on the following two topics:
The right to an effective remedy in Dublin cases
Asylum seekers, who arrive in a (Southern) EU Member State may have family members (a spouse, parent or minor child) with an asylum status in another Member State. According to the Dublin Regulation, the Member State where this family member is residing, is responsible for the examination of the asylum application of this asylum seeker. The Member State where the asylum seeker has applied for asylum can request the Member State where the family member is residing to take over the asylum application. However, what happens if the Member State refuses the request? This expert opinion addresses the question whether the asylum seeker concerned has the right to appeal the decision of the Member State to take responsibility for the examination the his or her asylum claim. Article 27 of the Dublin Regulation does not give a straightforward answer to this question.
This project is supervised by Evelien Brouwer and John Trajer.
Chavez cases and the relation of dependency
Third country national parents have a right to residence in the EU, if their expulsion would force their EU citizen minor child to leave the EU. In the judgment in Chavez-Vilchez, the the Court of Justice EU held that the relation of dependency between a third country national parent and the EU citizen child has to be taken into account in the assessment whether the child would be forced to leave the EU, if the third country national parent would be expelled.
This project concerns several cases in which the Immigration Service (IND) decided that the third country national parents failed to demonstrate that the child was dependent on them. It concerns parents, who have (temporarily) not been living together with their child, because they have separated from their partner/spouse or because the child lives in a care home. Parents have tried to demonstrate dependency for example by submitting family pictures and statements of doctors, school teachers or youth workers. The IND found this evidence insufficient. The question is whether the IND’s application of the dependency requirement is in conformity with EU law.
This project is supervised by Betty de Hart and Younous Arbaoui.
In the first semester of academic year 2019-2020, the Migration Law Clinic students worked oon two projects concerning cases, which have been referred to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) by the Dutch Council of State.
Detention of Asylum Status Holders in other EU Member States
The first project concerns three cases, in which the Council of State has referred a preliminary question on 4 September 2019. The question concerns the detention of migrants, who have received an asylum status in another EU Member State and have applied for asylum in the Netherlands. Their asylum applications have been declared inadmissible by the Dutch authorities and they had to return to the EU Member State that has granted them international protection. The Council of State has asked the CJEU the following preliminary question:
Does Directive 2008/115/EC (in particular Articles 3, 4, 6 and 15) prohibit that a migrant, who has been granted international protection in another EU Member State, is placed in aliens detention on the basis of national law,
having regard to the fact that the purpose of this detention is the return to this other Member State and for this reason the migrant has first been told to leave to the territory of this Member State, but no return decision has been taken after that?
The project is supervised by Galina Cornelisse and Denisa Fekollari
Interpretation of the Union Citizens Directive
This case concerns a Polish national, who registered in the Netherlands on 9 November 2017. He worked in the Netherlands for five months. On 1 June 2018, the Dutch Immigration Service decided that the man had to leave the Netherlands, because he did not fulfil the requirements for stay in the Netherlands. The man had committed several crimes in the Netherlands (theft, pickpocketing, failure to show an ID, nuisance). The man left the Netherlands. He stayed with friends in Germany and committed a theft there on 23 October 2018. The man stated that he returned to the Netherlands on 21 November 2018. On 22 November he was arrested for shoplifting and was placed in aliens detention (return of migrants illegally staying). On 25 September 2019, The Council of State has referred the following preliminary questions in this case:
1.Does Art. 15 (1) of Directive 2004/38/EC need to be explained as meaning that an EU citizen has complied with the decision, taken on the basis of this provision, to deport an EU citizen and that this decision does not have legal effect anymore, as soon as this citizen has left the territory of the host Member State within the lime-limit for voluntary return.
2.If question should be answered in the affirmative, does this Union citizen have the right to stay of max three months (art. 6(1) of the Directive) upon his direct return? Or can the host Member State take a new decision to deport the EU citizen in order to prevent that he enters the country continuously for short periods of time?
This project is supervised by Pieter Boeles and Shota Hitomi.
This is an overview of the cases supported by the Migration Law Clinic in the period 2013-2019:
The Migration Law expert opinions can be found here.