Starting from 2009, national courts of the EU Member States for the first time gained a “real” right to request the EU Court of Justice for preliminary rulings in asylum matters. First judgments of this Court demonstrate equivocal tendencies: some are blaming the Court for incompetence in asylum matters, others believe that the adoption of authoritative decisions at the European level will assist in developing consistent practice of applying asylum law in the European Union, something that failed at international level (...) due to absence of a single authoritative body to provide guidance on interpretation and application of the 1951 Refugee Convention. Considering that the judgments of the EU Court are part of the EU law, the Member States should develop their national asylum law with due regard being taken to those judgments. By the beginning of 2012, the Court has issued eight judgments on the interpretation of various problematic issues of EU asylum law. This Article analyses the jurisprudence of the EU Court in asylum cases, related to the granting of refugee status and subsidiary protection. It also provides a critical evaluation of those judgments. The main objective of the Article is to familiarise the relevant Lithuanian institutions and lawyers with the first judgments of the EU Court in asylum cases and encourage discussions concerning the application of rules established by the Court in the Lithuanian context. Due to limited size, this Article presents the analysis of two EU Court judgments adopted on interpretation of the 2004 Qualification Directive: Elgafaji v. The Netherlands (2009) dealing with granting of subsidiary protection, and Abdulla and others v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland (2010), dealing with cessation of refugee status. The value of those judgments first of all lies in the guidance they provided to the Member States on such concepts as: protection in a situation of an armed conflict, agents of protection, effectiveness of protection; as well as determination of a relationship between refugee status and subsidiary protection, relationship of the Qualification Directive with the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), also cessation of protection. Elgafaji decision, while quite liberal with regard to persons seeking international protection, is not so liberally applied in the Member States’ practice and does not in itself guarantee positive outcome of the application of a concrete individual fleeing from an armed conflict, or a liberal approach to granting subsidiary protection in the Member States. Based on Elgafaji judgment it is clear that: Art. 15(b) of the Qualification Directive correspond to Art. 3 ECHR, while Art. 15(c) provides additional protection and in that it expands the Member States’ obligations beyond the ECHR to provide protection to persons fleeing in situations of armed conflict. While not every person arriving from an armed conflict situation would automatically fall under the granting of subsidiary protection, in certain exceptional situations indiscriminate violence may amount to individual threat without invoking personal circumstances. The EU Court departed from the individualisation requirement applied by the European Court of Human Rights in Art. 3 cases and did not also rely on international humanitarian law, by introducing a “sliding scale” formula for establishing an individual threat in armed conflict situation instead. This formula addressed the alleged internal discrepancy between “individual threat” and “indiscriminate violence”. The Abdulla decision brought in the human rights and law enforcement perspectives to the interpretation of cessation clauses, however it represents a rather superficial approach in the context of the analysed concepts (e.g. towards effectiveness of protection provided by the multinational armed forces) and is likely to be incompatible with the latest legislative trends in the EU asylum instruments (e.g. determination of refugee status and subsidiary protection by means of a single procedure) and the recent jurisprudence under the ECHR (e.g. failure to ensure a minimum standard of living may violate the ECHR). (shrink)

Straipsnyje analizuojama viena naujausių vizualinio mąstymo teorijų – Emmanuelio Alloa (at)vaizdų simptomatologija. Susitelkiant į (at)vaizdo statuso autonomiškumo problemą, kurią įvairiais būdais sprendžia vizualinio ir ikoninio posūkių atstovai, klausiama, koks yra (at)vaizdo statusas kalbos atžvilgiu. Straipsnyje yra grįžtama prie (at)vaizdų simptomatologijos ištakų, konkrečiai – Nelsono Goodmano bendrosios simbolių teorijos. Tai leidžia išryškinti Alloa siūlomo simptomo modelio naujumą ir reabilituoti simptomatologinio tyrimo statusą. Straipsnyje teigiama, kad (at)vaizdams priskiriamas ikoniškumo statusas kalbos atžvilgiu gali būti performuluojamas, iškeliant simptomo tapatybės klausimą. Šia prasme ikoniškumo (...) simptomai yra (at)vaizdų analizei pritaikomi įrankiai, leidžiantys aprašyti skirtingus (at)vaizdų ikoniškumo raiškos lygmenis. (shrink)

The question of detention of asylum seekers is specific due to the special situation of detainees (persons who have experienced human rights violations and apply for asylum in receiving country) and due to peculiarities of detention itself (persons have not committed crimes, but come or stay illegally because they have been forced to do so by fleeing from human rights violations). Therefore, lately it raises many discussions at the European level. Sooner or later, discussions influence national laws, as after adopting (...) the EU directives their provisions must be properly transposed into national laws. This article describes the recent documents: the study in Lithuania, the UNHCR guidelines, the EU developments, the Lithuania judicial practice. The authors of the article discuss the latest amendments of the Law on the Legal Status of Aliens (entering into force on 1 February 2012) related to detention of asylum seekers after the transposition of the provisions of the Return Directive. The practice of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania when applying the new detention-related provisions is also reviewed in the article. The authors do not agree with the position of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania that the provisions of the Return Directive are applicable to asylum seekers. The authors pay attention to the case-law of the European Court of Justice, the preamble of the Return Directive and its legal relations with the EU asylum directives. At the end, the conclusions are drawn as to the way that the provisions of the Law on the Legal Status of Aliens should be interpreted in the light of the purposes and provisions of the European Union directives. In order to avoid contradictory practice and at the same time ensure the interests of public order in Lithuania, Article 113(7) of the Law on the Legal Status of Aliens could be applied. (shrink)

"Monografijoje tarpdalykiškai nagrinėjama Lietuvos filosofijos istoriografijos (1960–2004 m.) struktūra, raida ir metodai. Analizuojamas šios disciplinos tekstų srautas ir dinamika, parodoma jos probleminė struktūra. Identifikuojami mokytojo ir mokinio santykiai, apžvelgiamas mokslininkų grupių klostymasis ir jų struktūra, filosofijos istorikų konceptualių konfliktų specifika ir reikšmė disciplinos raidai. Parodomas Lietuvos filosofijos istoriografijos metodologinio reflektyvumo lygis, tyrimo metodų deklaracijos. Remiantis H. White’o aiškinimo strategijų teorija filosofijos istorijos tyrimai skirstomi į kontekstualistinius, mechanicistinius, organicistinius ir formistinius. Nustatomi konkretūs realiai taikomi tyrimų metodai, jie palyginami su esamomis metodologijomis. (...) Eksplikuojamos filosofijos istoriografijoje vyraujančios filosofijos raidos, filosofijos pažintinio ar ontologinio statuso ir kitos sampratos, lemiančios filosofinio istorinio aiškinimo pobūdį." - Doc. dr. Naglis Kardelis. (shrink)

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees embody fundamental provisions of refugee law. However, since the adoption of these documents the world has changed dramatically and the laws are not developing fast enough in order to catch up with dynamically changing contemporary situations. The application and interpretation of definition of a refugee was developed through traditional practice of Western states, which was influenced by two world wars and the (...) Cold War, when refugees from Africa or Asia were uncommon. The Qualification Directive specifically aims at ensuring that the member states apply common qualification criteria for persons who need international protection in line with the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The author supports the statement that the Qualification Directive in principle aims at bringing back under the definition of refugee those, who have been left outside of its scope during the last decades as a result of the restrictive interpretation and application of the definition of refugee. (shrink)

In 2011 there are 76 countries of the world still criminalising same-sex sexual acts between consenting adults. In seven of those countries homosexual acts are punishable with death penalty (i.e., Mauritania, Sudan, the northern states of Nigeria, the southern parts of Somalia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen). Homophobic (transphobic) attitudes are also frequent in many societies. However, the LGBT asylum seekers are frequently left outside the refugee definition due to many refugee qualification problems in LGBT cases. Therefore, in this article the (...) author aims to describe the main refugee qualification problems in LGBT asylum cases (i.e., criminalisation; state protection against non-state persecution; concealment of sexual or gender identity; internal protection) and propose their solutions. Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 has several important provisions including LGBT asylum seekers into otherwise gender-neutral refugee definition. Today these provisions need to be correctly interpreted and transposed into practice of the Member States. (shrink)

Although the Refugee Convention 1951 generally provided that contracting states should recognise those who came within its definition as refugees, it did not prescribe how contracting states should determine this in order to enable them to balance this obligation with their national interests. However, evidence from the background and drafting of the Refugee Convention 1951 suggests that the provisions that a contracting states would implement in order to protect its interests would be commensurate with the human rights spirit of the (...) treaty. This implied that contracting states would act fairly in balancing the competing interests in devising status determination policies and would take into account decent considerations. But, from a theoretical viewpoint, it is arguable that some recent asylum determination policies have been based on the threats posed by asylum seekers. Asylum seekers have come to be blamed for contributing to the national issues that some contracting states face and as such, some contracting states have adopted draconian measures as a result. (shrink)

Internal protection alternative (further—IPA) as the element of refugee definition is interpreted very differently in the practice of the State Parties to the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (further—Geneva Convention). Thus it is important to regulate this concept clearly in the EC directive 2004/83/EB (further—Qualification directive) and its coming amendments. The definition of the IPA concept does not contain adequate criteria for assessing the level and effectiveness of protection required, in line with the (...) Geneva Convention and the ECHR, thus allowing Member States to reject claims and return applicants to their country of origin despite the lack of effective protection. Moreover, this concept is defined in a broad and vague manner which creates a risk of diverse recognition practices. (shrink)