Judicial Dialogue in Action: Making Sense of the Risk of Absconding in the Return Procedure

Result code in IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216224%3A14220%2F20%3A00115134" target="_blank" >RIV/00216224:14220/20:00115134 - isvavai.cz</a>

Result on the web

<a href="https://is.muni.cz/publication/1581938/cs/Judicial-Dialogue-in-Action-Making-Sense-of-the-Risk-of-Absconding-in-the-Return-Procedure/Bianca-Moraru?vysledek=94278" target="_blank" >https://is.muni.cz/publication/1581938/cs/Judicial-Dialogue-in-Action-Making-Sense-of-the-Risk-of-Absconding-in-the-Return-Procedure/Bianca-Moraru?vysledek=94278</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Result language

angličtina

Original language name

Judicial Dialogue in Action: Making Sense of the Risk of Absconding in the Return Procedure

Original language description

The concept of ‘risk of absconding’ has been introduced as a ground for immigration detention since 2008. Notwithstanding the abundant literature on immigration detention and the increasing European courts’ jurisprudence assessing the lawfulness of such measures at the domestic level, the substantive meaning of the term still appears “nebulous”. The purpose of this article is to shed light on its elements through a close examination of domestic and CJEU jurisprudence. It will be shown that the choices of State legislature have mostly been led by protectionist objectives, broadly defining the term, leading in several cases, particularly during the 2015 migration crisis, to systemic and arbitrary pre-removal detention. However, national courts are slowly but steadily starting to prioritise the EU general principles of legal certainty, individual assessment and proportionality, and fundamental rights protection when assessing the notion of ‘the risk of absconding’. Nevertheless, the interpretation and application of the ‘risk of absconding’ still poses difficulties for national courts. The Commission’s proposal for a recast of the Return Directive, while remedying one of the previous problems in the definition of the ‘risk of absconding’ – lack of definition of ‘objective criteria’ for assessing the risk of absconding, it nonetheless encourages wide spread use of pre-removal detention. In this context, the chapter analyses the contribution of judicial dialogue to ensuring respect for EU general principles of legality, certainty, proportionality, individual assessment and respect of irregular migrants’ fundamental rights.

Czech name

—

Czech description

—

Type

C - Chapter in a specialist book

CEP classification

—

OECD FORD branch

50501 - Law

Project

—

Continuities

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Publication year

2020

Confidentiality

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Book/collection name

Law and Judicial Dialogue on the Return of Irregular Migrants from the European Union

ISBN

9781509922956

Number of pages of the result

25

Pages from-to

125-149

Number of pages of the book

528

Publisher name

Hart

Place of publication

UK

UT code for WoS chapter

—