The Cjeu Secures Asylum Seekers' Correct To Identify Unit Of Measurement Housing

Professor Steve Peers, University of Essex

What obligations create Member United States of America cause got to ensure that asylum-seeking families are housed adequately? The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has today usefully clarified the minimum standards which Member United States of America must notice on this issue, inward its judgment in Saciri. This judgment is a welcome confirmation that whatever the practical difficulties facing Member United States of America inward managing their reception for asylum-seekers, families cannot only survive left homeless or forced to alive inward grossly inadequate weather condition past times way of the refusal of back upward for fiscal assistance to obtain housing.

Judgment

The representative concerns a household unit of measurement of asylum-seekers (two parents as well as 3 children) who needed accommodation inward Kingdom of Belgium piece their asylum application was existence considered. The Belgian agency responsible for reception of asylum-seekers replied that it could non render reception, as well as referred them to the social assistance agency. Since the Saciri household unit of measurement could non pay the rent existence charged for someone properties, they asked the social assistance agency for fiscal support.

But at that spot was a 'Catch-22': the agency refused to give them support, since the household unit of measurement was non living inward accommodation provided for past times the reception agency - fifty-fifty though the reception agency had told them that it could non assist them. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 lower courtroom inward Kingdom of Belgium ruled that the reception agency had to pay them fiscal support, as well as that agency appealed to the referring court, which asked the CJEU questions virtually the EU's first-phase reception weather condition Directive.

First of all, the CJEU pointed out that the Directive allows for back upward for asylum-seekers either inward variety (ie providing housing directly) or past times providing fiscal allowances. Then it confirmed its prior representative constabulary (Cimade as well as GISTI) to the effect that benefits must survive provided every bit presently every bit the asylum application is made, inward special inward lite of the correct to human dignity laid upward out inward the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Next, every bit for the sum of the fiscal allowances, regardless of how the assist is provided, the Directive states that it must ensure a dignified touchstone of living for applicants' health, every bit good every bit subsistence. Member United States of America must also, according to the Directive, accept draw organization human relationship of those amongst special needs (including minors), entailing a requirement to save household unit of measurement unity every bit good every bit the best interests of the child. The CJEU confirmed that these principles meant that applicants must survive able to obtain housing on the someone marketplace if necessary, although this did non hateful that asylum-seekers could brand their ain alternative of housing.

The CJEU as well as therefore ruled that, although the specific rules inward the Directive relating to housing alone apply where the housing is provided inward variety past times Member States, it even therefore followed that whatever allowances provided to assist amongst housing had to ensure the unity of the family.

Finally, the Court ruled that where accommodation facilities are overloaded, it was opened upward to Member United States of America to cite asylum-seekers to the government responsible for world assistance, provided that the latter government ensure that the minimum standards inward the Directive are met.

The Court concluded past times noting that 'saturation of the reception networks [is not] a justification for whatever derogation from meeting' the standards inward the Directive.

Comments

The CJEU's judgment neatly addresses the 'Catch-22' created past times national law, which to approximately extent reflects the construction of the Directive. On the i hand, the Directive lays out full general rules on reception support, but as well as therefore on the other hand, it alone lays out detailed rules every bit regards housing where the State provides such housing inward kind. What if the State does not, or cannot, render for housing inward kind?

The Court's answer to this inquiry takes draw organization human relationship of the Definition of 'material reception conditions' inward the Directive, which expressly includes 'housing'. So it logically follows that such cloth back upward must include assistance to obtain housing, where no housing is provided for inward kind.

Moreover, it is expressly clear from the Court's judgment that a household unit of measurement of asylum-seekers is entitled to back upward to obtain household unit of measurement housing on the someone market, although the Court does recognise that the asylum-seekers create non cause got a fully gratuitous alternative of where they may survive housed. This necessarily way that, if at that spot is no publicly-provided accommodation available, the government must ensure that a household unit of measurement of asylum-seekers has plenty back upward to afford to rent a belongings at marketplace rates, which is big plenty to theater their household unit of measurement inward dignity. But the theater demand non survive palatial. Probably this way that a household unit of measurement of 5 cannot demand plenty fiscal back upward to rent a four-bedroom house; but neither tin they all survive expected to slumber on the same sofa.

The Court's answer to these questions was non affected past times the overloading of the Member State's reception system. This had practical consequences, inward that asylum-seekers tin survive referred to the social assistance agency instead of the reception agency, as well as survive provided amongst a fiscal allowance instead of housing inward kind. But the basic obligation to render plenty assistance to ensure a minimum dignified grade of accommodation, including household unit of measurement unity, cannot survive derogated from.

Finally, it should survive noted that the judgment takes a stronger approach to household unit of measurement unity than the wording of the Directive, which states alone that household unit of measurement unity shall survive ensured 'as far every bit possible', as well as alone where Member United States of America render for accommodation inward kind. The Court's judgment way instead that families of asylum-seekers must survive able to alive together inward all cases, if necessary inward someone accommodation, fifty-fifty if this way approximately additional damage or administrative inconvenience for Member States. This tin alone survive welcomed, every bit it is an essential pace to ensure the protection of the household unit of measurement life of approximately of the most vulnerable people inward the European Union.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

Share this post