facility:constitutional court

Consiglio di Stato : annullato il trasferimento di un richiedente asilo verso la Bulgaria

Il Consiglio di Stato italiano conferma il proprio orientamento sulla Bulgaria quale Paese non sicuro ai fini del trasferimento di richiedenti protezione in applicazione del Regolamento Dublino.

Con sentenza n. 5085 del 03 novembre 2017, la più alta Corte amministrativa italiana ha annullato il trasferimento verso la Bulgaria di un richiedente asilo ai sensi del Regolamento 604/2013, confermando, con tale pronuncia, il proprio orientamento già espresso lo scorso anno con le sentenze consecutive n. 3998/2016 Reg. Prov. Coll., n. 3999/2016 Reg. Prov. Coll., n. 4000/2016 Reg. Prov. Coll. e n. 4002/2016 Reg. Prov. Coll.

Nella sentenza il Consiglio di Stato afferma che “non vi siano elementi affidabili per ritenere che le condizioni dei richiedenti asilo in Bulgaria offrano sicure garanzie di rispettare i diritti fondamentali dello straniero e siano tali da scongiurare il fondato rischio di trattamenti disumani e degradanti, siccome prevede l’art. 3, par. 2, del Reg. UE n. 604 del 2013”.

Tale assunto risulta particolarmente rilevante anche alla luce del fatto che il Collegio va oltre le informazioni che erano state fornite dal Ministero degli Affari Esteri, su richiesta dello stesso Collegio. Secondo il Consiglio di Stato, infatti, tali informazioni “non forniscono elementi tali da rassicurare convincentemente circa l’effettivo raggiungimento di livelli di accoglienza tali da scongiurare il fondato dubbio che sussistano, a tutt’oggi, carenze sistemiche nelle condizioni di accoglienza dei richiedenti”.

La sentenza, collocandosi nel solco della giurisprudenza della Corte Europea dei diritti dell’Uomo, afferma come a garanzia di incomprimibili diritti fondamentali dello straniero operi un principio di cautela tale per cui il giudice deve annullare il provvedimento di trasferimento di uno straniero tutte le volte che sussista il ragionevole dubbio che vi siano nel Paese di rinvio carenze sistemiche.

In base a tali considerazioni, la più alta Corte amministrativa italiana ha ritenuto prevalenti le informazioni, evidenziate dalla difesa del ricorrente, diffuse da organizzazioni internazionali nonché le decisioni di altre alte Corti Europee sul punto.

Il Consiglio di Stato, pertanto, ha ritenuto sussistente il rischio di trattamenti inumani e degradanti per il ricorrente qualora lo stesso dovesse essere rinviato in Bulgaria e per tale ragione ne ha annullato il relativo trasferimento.

Per ulteriori informazioni sull’azione potete contattare l’avv. Loredana Leo, 3470339581/avv.loredanaleo@gmail.com

▻https://www.asgi.it/asilo-e-protezione-internazionale/bulgaria-asilo-trasferimento

Italy: Council of State suspends a Dublin transfer to Bulgaria due to deficiencies in the Bulgarian asylum system

On 3 November 2017, the Italian Council of State suspended (▻https://www.asgi.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Bulgaria-Paese-non-sicuro-ottobre-2017.pdf) the Dublin transfer of an Afghan national from Italy to Bulgaria. The applicant had previously appealed against the transfer decision before the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio, without success. In March 2016, the Council of State granted suspensive effect to the appeal and instructed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to provide a report on the conditions faced by asylum seekers in Bulgaria, which was submitted in April 2017.

The Council of State found, contrary to the lower’s court interpretation, that nothing in the documents submitted before it allowed the Council of State to be fully reassured that the conditions faced by asylum seekers in Bulgaria would not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Council acknowledged the substantial improvements in the Bulgarian asylum system in the recent months, but stated that recent reports still point to poor reception and integration conditions. The Council also relied on decisions from other national courts, such as the Administrative Court of Appeal of Bordeaux (case no.16BX03424), the Federal Administrative Court of Switzerland (case no. E-305/2017) and the Constitutional Court of Austria (case no. 484/2017), which all recognised the existence of serious deficiencies in the Bulgarian asylum system in the context of a Dublin transfer. Therefore, the Council of State quashed the transfer decision to Bulgaria.

Based on an unofficial translation by the ELENA Weekly Legal Update. We would like to thank Loredana Leo and ASGI for bringing this case to our attention. A summary of the decision can be found in Italian here.

▻https://us1.campaign-archive.com/?u=8e3ebd297b1510becc6d6d690&id=7e017ec4b3#8

Gov’t Offers 84 Pct of Earmarked Support to Kaesong Complex Firms | Be Korea-savvy
▻http://koreabizwire.com/govt-offers-84-pct-of-earmarked-support-to-kaesong-complex-firms/67046

http://koreabizwire.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Kaesong-1024x681.png

SEOUL, Sept. 28 (Korea Bizwire) – South Korea said Wednesday it has handed out 84 percent of support funds earmarked for local firms that operated factories in the now-shuttered joint industrial park in North Korea to help cover their financial losses.

The government has offered 438.5 billion won (US$399.8 million) out of about 500 billion won in state funds to South Korean companies that had factories at the Kaesong Industrial Complex, according to Seoul’s unification ministry.

Seoul shut down the factory zone in the North’s border city of Kaesong on Feb. 10 in response to North Korea’s nuclear test in January and long-range rocket launch in the following month.

Owners of Kaesong firms challenge constitutionality of shutdown
▻http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/northkorea/2016/05/09/0401000000AEN20160509007100320.html

http://img.yonhapnews.co.kr/etc/inner/EN/2016/05/09/AEN20160509007100320_01_i.jpg

SEOUL, May 9 (Yonhap) — A group of South Korean firms with facilities at the now-defunct joint industrial park with North Korea filed a complaint Monday, challenging the constitutionality of a government decision to close the inter-Korean industrial complex.

The complaint, filed with the Constitutional Court of Korea, came about three months after the Seoul government shut down the joint industrial park located just north of the Inter-Korean border in Kaesong, North Korea.

Sa fiche sur le site de la Cour constitutionnelle

Constitutional Court of Ukraine
▻http://www.ccu.gov.ua/en/publish/article/11784

Judge Shyshkin was born in 1952 in Tyraspol, Moldavian SSR.
 
He started to work in 1969. He served a regular term in the army.
 
In 1973 he finished Tyraspol technical school no. 2, and worked as a locksmith.
 
In 1981 he graduated from the Law Faculty of Odesa Illia Mechnykov State University. The same year he was elected people’s judge at Oleksandrivskyi district people’s court in Kirovohrad region.
 
1982-1985 - people’s judge of Kirovskyi regional people’s court in Kirovohrad.
 
1985-1990 - Judge of Kirovohrad regional court, Deputy Chairman of this court.
 
He was a People’s Deputy of Ukraine of the I, II and III convocations, Deputy Head of the Committee of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
 
1991-1993 - Prosecutor General of Ukraine.
 
In November 2005 he was appointed Judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine by the President of Ukraine. He swore the oath on August 4, 2006.
 
Candidate of Legal Sciences (constitutional law). In 1987 he defended the thesis “The constitutional right of the Soviet citizens to appeal acts of officials, state and civil bodies”. Associate Professor. In 1996 Judge Shyshkin was awarded with the title “Distinguished Lawyer of Ukraine” for elaboration of the Constitution of Ukraine.
 
He is the author of over 100 publications in Ukraine and abroad (Poland, the United States of America, Hungary, Germany), in particular monographs “Constitutional Right to Challenge Acts of the Officials in Court” (1990), “Ensuring Human Rights in the US Justice (organisational and procedural principles)” (2000) and text-books “Judicial Systems of the World States”, (two volumes) (2001) “Principles of Administrative Justice and Administrative Law” (in co-authorship) (2006).

fiche maintenant complétée par la ligne suivante :

In July 2015 the President of Ukraine accepted the resignation of Viktor Shyshkin

Ah tiens, pour le fun, ce qu’écrivait un certain Viktor Shyshkin en 2010…

CCU judge : There are no grounds for pre-term dismissal of CCU judges - David Zhvaniya’s Personal Site
▻http://zhvaniya.com/en/article/sudya_ksu_net_osnovaniy_dlya_dosrochnogo_prekrascheniya_polnomochiy_sudey_

There are no grounds for pre-term dismissal of anyone of the CCCU [Constitutional Court of Ukraine] judges. That’s what Viktor Shyshkin, the CCU judge, stated to RBC-Ukraine commenting the initiative of people’s deputy Roman Zvarych to dismiss the CCU judges who had supported the decision on individual deputies’ membership in the coalition.

“All that (Zvarych’s appeal) are populist steps and a matter of politics. There are no legal prospects of that”, – Shyshkin emphasized.

Le décret présidentiel
▻http://www.president.gov.ua/documents/4442015-19270

Відповідно до пункту 22 частини першої статті 106, пункту 9 частини п’ятої статті 126, статті 149 Конституції України постановляю:
Звільнити ШИШКІНА Віктора Івановича з посади судді Конституційного Суду України у зв’язку з поданням заяви про відставку.

Il s’agit donc de la démission de l’intéressé.