Document Type : Article


1 Ph.D. student in International Law, Department of International Law, Sari Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sari, Iran

2 Assistant professor, Department of International Law, Sari Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sari, Iran

3 Assistant professor, Department of International Law, Qaemshahr Islamic Azad University, Qaemshahr, Iran


Since 2015 with the peak of the EU's refugee crisis, the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) has been challenged. In this challenge, the role of the EU's highest judicial authority, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), is crucial. In this descriptive-analytical paper, the cases referred to after 2015 have been analyzed as integrated, and the question has been answered, to what extent the CEAS has succeeded in managing the EU's refugee crisis, at CJEU view. The CJEU’s case law have shown a dichotomy which sometimes in favor of fundamental rights and sometimes in favor of the CEAS. The dichotomy along with the gradual evolution of the court’s judgments related to the interpretation of the CEAS was in favor of fundamental rights, which indicates its relative failure and the need for substantial reform of the CEAS rules has demonstrated. Considering the need of reforming and updating the Foreign Nationals law of Iran, due to the CEAS’s trial and error, this paper provides a suitable basis for formulating a set of efficient laws per Islamic law.


  1. English

    1. A) Book
    2. Craig, Paul & de Búrca, Gráinne (2011). The evolution of EU law, OUP Oxford, 2ed edition.


    1. B) Articles
    2. Bayman, Daniel & Sloane, Speakman. (2016), "The Syrian refugee crisis: Bad and worse options." The Washington Quarterly, Vol.39, No.2, pp.45-60.
    3. Dörrenbächer, Nora (2017), “Europe at the frontline: analyzing street-level motivations for the use of European Union migration law”, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol.24, No.9, pp.1328-1347.
    4. Fullerton, Maryellen (2017), "Refugees and the Primacy of European Human Rights Law." UCLA J. Int'l L. Foreign Aff,Vol.21, pp.45-69.
    5. Harpaz, Guy (2009), “The European Court of Justice and its relations with the European Court of Human Rights: the quest for enhanced reliance, coherence and legitimacy”, Common Market Law Review, Vol.46, No.1,pp.105-141.
    6. Hurwitz, Agnes (1999), “The 1990 Dublin regulation: A Comprehensive Assessment”, International Journal of Refugee Law, Vol.11, No.4, pp.646-677.
    7. Isiksel, Turkuler (2016), “European Exceptionalism and the EU’s Accession to the ECHR”, European Journal of International Law, Vo.27, No.3, pp.565–589.
    8. Sadowski, Piotr (2019), “A Safe Harbour or a Sinking Ship: On the Protection of Fundamental Rights of Asylum Seekers in Recent CJEU Judgments”, Eur. J. Legal Stud., Vol.11, No.2, pp. 29-64.
    9. Schmälter, Julia (2018), “A European response to non-compliance: the Commission’s enforcement efforts and the Common European Asylum System”, West European Politics, Vol.41, No.6, pp.1330-1353.
    10. Selivanov, Andrey & Liubou, Kravets (2016), “The International Asylum System: History of Formation and Contemporary Challenges” ,International Relations and Foreign Policy, pp.33-38.


    1. C) Documents
    2. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2000/C364/01, (2000), Official Journal of the European Communities, C 364/1.
    3. Council Directive 2003/9/EC, (2003), Laying Down Minimum Standards for the Reception of Asylum Seekers, Official Journal L 031, P: 18-25.
    4. Council Directive 2004/83/EC, (2004), on Minimum Standards For The Qualification And Status Of Third Country Nationals Or Stateless Persons As Refugees Or As Persons Who Otherwise Need International Protection And The Content Of The Protection Granted, Official Journal of the European Union, L 304/12.
    5. Council Regulation (EC) No.2725/2000, (2000), Concerning the Establishment of 'EURODAC' For the Comparison of Fingerprints for the Effective Application of the Dublin Convention, Official Journal, L.316, P1-10.
    6. Council Regulation (EC) No.343/2003, (2003), Establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national, Official Journal, L.050, P1-10.
    7. Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, (2011), on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, Official Journal of the European Union, L.337/9.
    8. Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, (2013), Laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection, Official Journal of the European Union, L.180/96.
    9. Regulation (EU) No.603/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (2013), on the establishment of 'EURODAC' for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of Regulation(EU)No.604/2013 and amending Regulation (EU)No.1077/2011, Official Journal of the European Union, L.180/1.
    10. Regulation (EU) No.604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (2013), Establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person(recast), Official Journal of the European Union, L.180/31.
    11. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), (2012), Official EN Journal of the European Union, C326/49.
    12. Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, (1951), UNHCR Communications and Public Information Service, Geneva, Switzerland.


    1. D) Cases
    2. AG Opinion of 31 October 2019, European Commission v Republic of Poland, Republic of Hungary and Czech Republic, Cases CJEU-719/17, CJEU-718/17 and CJEU-715/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:917, available at:
    3. Judgment of 19 March 2019, Abubacarr Jawo, CJEU-163/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:218, available at: /document.jsf?text=&docid=211803&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=4683444
    4. Judgment of 15 March 2017, Salah Al Chodor and others, CJEU-528/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:213, available at: document.jsf?text=&docid=188907&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=691726
    5. Judgment of 7 July 2017, Khadija Jafari and Zainab Jafari, CJEU-646/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:586, available at: document.jsf?text=&docid=193206&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=6849081
    6. Judgment of 26 July 2017, A.S., CJEU-490/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:585, available at: 193201&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=6849081
    7. Judgment of 13 September 2017, Mohammad Khir Amayry, CJEU-60/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:675, available at: /document.jsf?text=&docid=194404&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2532752
    8. Judgment of 16 February 2017, C.K., H.F., and A.S., CJEU-578/16 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2017:127, available at: document.jsf?text=&docid=187916&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=692874
    9. Judgment of 9 February 2017, M, CJEU-560/14, ECLI:EU:C:2017:101, available at: document.jsf?text=&docid=187687&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=6849081
    10. Judgment of 6 September 2017, Slovak Republic and Hungary supported by republic of Poland, CJEU‑643/15 and CJEU‑647/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:631, available at: &docid=194081&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=6849081
    11. Judgment of 26 July 2017, Tsegezab Mengesteab, CJEU-670/16, ECLI:EU:C: 2017: 587, available at: =&docid=193208&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=607784
    12. Judgment of 31 May 2018, Adil Hassan, CJEU-647/16, ECLI: EU: C: 2018: 368, available at: text=&docid=202412&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=684020
    13. Judgment of 15 February 2016, J. N., CJEU-601/15 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2016:84, available at: ?text=&docid=174342&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=688439
    14. Judgment of 20 October 2016, Evelyn Danqua, CJEU-429/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:789, available at: document.jsf?text=&docid=184688&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=924710
    15. Judgment of 1 March 2016, Ibrahim Alo and Amira Osso, Cases CJEU-443/14 and CJEU-444/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:127, available at: juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=174657&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=924193
    16. Judgment of 30 May 2013, Zuheyr Frayeh Halaf, CJEU-528/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:342, available at: /document.jsf?text=&docid=137826&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=690663


    1. E) Website
    2. Carney, Todd, (2019), “European Court of Justice Rules on Deporting Refugees Convicted of Crimes.” Law fare site, available at: european-court-justice-rules-deporting-refugees-convicted-crimes (last visited on2020/01/08)


    References in Persian:

    1. A) Articles
    2. Abedini, Abdollah (2018), “The EU as A Special Regime: Features and Effects”, Public Law Studies Quarterly, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp.957-977 (In Persian).
    3. Kadkhodaei, Abbas Ali (1999), Judicial Institutions of the European Court of Justice and its role in the integration of the ED”, Law and Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 51, Issue 839, pp. 87-106 (In Persian).
    4. Kadkhodaei Abbas Ali, Rostami Soraya, (2020), “Legal Challenges of Solitary and Joint Commitments of the European Union Member States Toward the Refugees and Immigrants”, Public Law Studies Quarterly, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 23 - 38 (In Persian).
    5. Farokhi, Rahmatollah; Ramazani, Mohammad Hossein; Abadi, Ghavam & Zamani, Seyd Ghasem (2016), “The Role of European Court of Justice in the Development of EU Legal Integration”, Public Law Researches Quarterly, Vol. 17, Issue 49, No. 49, pp.57-83 (In Persian).
    6. Sadat Akhavi, Seyed Ali & Hassani, Sara (2020), “The Status of Syrian Migrants Under International Law and The Assessment of the Measures Taken by The Host States in Their Regard”, Public Law Studies Quarterly, Vol. 49, No. 4, pp.1229 - 1248 (In Persian).