The potential deadlock of the ECtHR and the CJEU. Dublin cases and non-refoulement in Europe. A case study

      Аннотация: This paper analyses the question of whether the two european Courts, the ECtHR and the CJEU, due to the lack of clear rules of jurisdiction, head towards a deadlock. The author will research if the forms of "judicial diplomacy" developed to avoid conflicts of jurisdiction have the potential to jeopardise the european human rights protection systems of both institutions. The paper asks the question if the "mutual respect" for each other and each other's jurisdiction opens gaps in the human rights protection. Do the Courts shy away from an explicit decision limiting the jurisdiction of the respective other Court, or limiting one's own jurisdiction? Do the Courts, in order to avoid a conflict, become passive, and will this struggle to settle that (inherent) dispute eventually paralyse both Courts? In order to give an answer to those questions this paper will analyse three judgements that display the struggle for jurisdiction under a magnifying glass. The comparison of the ECtHR's case M.S.S v Belgium and Greece and the CJEU's case N.S and M.E and the ECtHR's Tarakhel v Switzerland will also show how the Courts “communicate” or rather fail to communicate.

Ключевые слова: CJEU, ECtHR, ECHR, Dublin system, Dublin Regulation, Asylum, Tarakhel v Switzerland, non-refoulement, refoulement, Article 3, EU Charter, European Convention on Human Rights, Geneva Convention, Refugees, M.S.S v Belgium and Greece, Greece, N.S and M.E