Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:07:40.414Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shepherd v. Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Klaus Ferdinand Gärditz
Klaus Ferdinand Gärditz*
Affiliation:
University of Bonn, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In Shepherd v. Germany, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) issued a preliminary ruling requested by a German administrative court in an asylum case brought by a United States Army service member. Applying the relevant asylum law of the European Union (EU), the ECJ held that, under certain circumstances, a conscientious objector who has deserted from his military unit may claim international refugee protection. It also clarified the conditions under which the basically legitimate prosecution of military deserters must be qualified as illegitimate persecution under international refugee law.

Keywords

Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugeesinternational refugee lawEU refugee qualification directiveconscientious objectionprosecution of deserters as persecution
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 109 , Issue 3 , July 2015 , pp. 623 - 630
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Case C-472/13, Shepherd v. Germany (Eur. Ct. Justice Feb. 26, 2015) [hereinafter Judgment]. Decisions of the Court cited herein are available at its website, http://curia.europa.eu.

2 Case C-472/13, Shepherd v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, para. 3 (Eur. Ct. Justice Nov. 11, 2014).

3 See Bundesverwaltungsgericht [BVerwG] [Federal Administrative Court] Dec. 6, 1988, 81 Entscheidungen des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts [BVerwge] 41, 42 (1988); Jarass, Hans D., Artikel 16a, Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, para. 20 (Jarass, Hans D. & Pieroth, Bodo eds., 13th ed. 2014)Google Scholar.

4 Verwaltungsgericht München [VG] [Administrative Court Munich] Aug. 20, 2013, Case M 25 K 11.30288; Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Art. 267, Sept. 5, 2008, 2008 O.J. (C 115) 47 [hereinafter TFEU].

5 Council Directive 2004/83/Ec on Minimum Standards for the Qualification and Status of Third Country Nationals or Stateless Persons as Refugees, 2004 O.J. (L 304) 12 [hereinafter Directive].

6 Asylverfahrengesetz [AsylVfG] [Asylum Procedure Act] Sept. 2, 2008, Bgbl. I at 1798, cited in Judgment, para. 12.

7 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, July 28, 1951, 189 UNTS 150.

8 Joined Cases C-199/12–C-201/12, Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel v. X, para. 40 (Eur. Ct. Justice Nov. 7, 2013); Case C-604/12, H. N. v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, paras. 27–28 (Eur. Ct. Justice May 8, 2014); Joined Cases C-148/13–C-150/13, A v. Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, para. 46 (Eur. Ct. Justice Dec. 2, 2014).

9 Judgment, para. 23 (citing Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel v. X, supra note 8, para. 40); see also Case C-364/11, Abedel Karem el Kott v. Bevándorlási és állampolgársági Hivatal, para. 43 (Eur. Ct. Justice Dec. 19, 2012).

10 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 18, Dec. 7, 2000, 2000 O.J. (C 364) 1, 40 ILM 266 (2001).

11 Directive, supra note 5, Art. 12(2)(a); see Goodwin-Gill, Guy S. & McAdam, Jane, The Refugee in International Law 166–68 (3d ed. 2007)Google Scholar.

12 Frances Cocherubini, Asylum Law in the European Union: From the Geneva Convention to the Law of the Eu 9–10 (2015).

13 Eurostat, Asylum Statistics (May 21, 2015), at http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Asylum-statistics.

14 Cf.Hathaway, James C. & Foster, Michelle, The Law of Refugee Status 270–74 (2d ed. 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar (containing various references to legal practice).

15 For a profound analysis, see Whitman, James Q., Harsh Justice: Criminal Punishment and the Widening Divide Between America and Europe 191–207 (2003)Google Scholar.

16 See 10 U.S.C. §885 (2013); Manual for Courts-Martial Unitedstates, Art. 85(e), Maximum Punishment, at IV-12 (2012); Wehrstrafgesetz [WStG] [Military Penal Code] §16(1) (Ger.) (fine or imprisonment for up to five years).

17 See Charter, supra note 10, Art. 51.

18 See Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community, Art. 6(1), Dec. 13, 2007, 2007 O.J. (C 306) 1.

19 Craig, Paul, Eu Administrative Law 256–57, 705–07 (2d ed. 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 See BVerwG (Military Service Senate), June 21, 2005, 127 Bverwge 302, 343–52 (2005) (acquitting an army major of adisciplinary charge for his refusal to obey an order and, on the merits, in an obvious case of over reach, incidentally declaring the invasion of Iraq an act of aggression incompatible with Article 51 of the UN Charter).

21 Grundgesetz fur die Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Grundgesetz] [GG] [Basic Law], 23, 1949, Art. 19(4), BGBL. I; Charter, supra note 10, Art. 47.

22 See, in this connection, Judgment, para. 41.

23 Joined Cases C-402/05 P & C-415/05 P, Kadi v. Council, 2008 ECR I-6351, paras. 281–85.

24 A judgment of the court is reviewable by the Higher Administrative Court and, depending on its decision, can be appealed to the Federal Administrative Court. A final decision can be challenged by constitutional complaint to the Federal Constitutional Court.