Search

Listina o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije predstavlja osrednji dokument varstva temeljnih pravic v Evropski uniji, ki so se razvila skozi prakso Sodišča Evropske unije. Kot deklaracija je bila najprej slovesno razglašena 7. decembra 2000, pravna veljava in status primarnega prava Evropske unije pa ji je bil podeljen devet let kasneje z Lizbonsko pogodbo. Vsebina Listine o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije temelji na skupnih ustavnih tradicijah in mednarodnih obveznosti držav članic, Evropski konvenciji o varstvu človekovih pravic, socialnih listinah Evropske unije in Sveta Evrope, sodni praksi Sodišča Evropske unije ter Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice. Kljub temu pa je njena vsebina tudi inovativna in v nekaterih primerih širša. Tako je z Listino o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije, zagotovljena pravica do azila, kar predstavlja redkost v mednarodnih dokumentih varstva temeljnih pravic. V praksi jo tako Sodišče Evropske unije kot nacionalna sodišča velikokrat uporabljajo na področju migracij in azila. Sodišče Evropske unije igra pomembno vlogo pri harmonizaciji Skupnega evropskega azilnega sistema in zagotavljanju minimalnih standardov varstva pravic prosilcev za mednarodno zaščito skozi interpretacijo skladnosti določb sekundarne zakonodaje Evropske unije na področju azila in nacionalne zakonodaje z Listino o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije. “Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union” represents a core bill of rights document within the European union which developed through the case law of the European Court of Justice. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union was solemnly announced on 7 December 2000 as a Declaration, only becoming legally binding nine years later with the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty, which granted it the status of primary law of the European Union. The contents within the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is based on the constitutional traditions and international obligations common to member states, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, Social Charters of the European union, and the Council of Europe, the case law of the European Court of Justice, and the European Court of Human Rights. However, it is also innovative and broader in some cases. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union provides a right to be granted asylum, which represents a rarity in international instruments of fundamental rights. It is often used in practice by the European Court of Justice and national courts in the field of migration and asylum. The European Court of Justice plays an important role in harmonization of the Common European Asylum System and in setting of minimum standards for protection of the rights of applicants for international protection through its interpretation in compliance of secondary legislation of the European Union and national legislation with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Države članice EU tujcem, med katerimi so tudi prosilci za azil, na številne načine otežujejo dostop do svojega ozemlja po zračni poti. K temu prispeva tudi evropska ureditev sankcij za prevoznike, ki od prevoznikov zahteva, da zagotovijo, da potnik razpolaga z vsemi listinami, ki so potrebne za vstop na ozemlja pogodbenic, in jim v primeru, da do teritorija članic pripeljejo tujca, ki teh listin nima, nalaga sankcije. Pri izpolnjevanju omenjenih obveznosti letalskim prevoznikom pomagajo t.i. letalski uradniki, katerih dolžnost je, da jim nudijo nasvete in pomoč pri sprejemanju odločitev, ali ima oseba vse potrebne dokumente za vstop na ozemlje EU in se torej lahko vkrca na letalo. Zdi se, da države s prenosom nalog migracijskega nadzora na letalske družbe zagotovijo, da potencialni prosilci za azil sploh ne dosežejo njihovega ozemlja, in se na tak način razbremenijo odgovornosti za morebitne kršite obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz mednarodnega prava. Ravnanja migracijske kontole, ki so na letališčih sicer izvršena neposredno s strani osebja letalskih družb, so sicer, upoštevaje pravila mednarodnega prava, pripisljiva državam, odgovornost za morebitne kršitve njihovih mednarodnopravnih obveznosti in potencialne posege v pravice beguncev pa je kljub temu vprašljiva, saj so države za ravnanja, ki jih izvršijo zunaj svojih meja, odgovorne le pod pogojem, da je mogoče ugotoviti, da so nad posamezniki izvajale jurisdikcijo. Mednarodna praksa zaenkrat stoji na stališču, da država ekstrateritorialno jurisdikcijo nad posamezniki izvaja le v primerih, ko imajo subjekti, ki nastopajo v državnem imenu, nad njimi visoko stopnjo nadzora. V literaturi zato prevladuje mnenje, da nadzor potne dokumentacije in morebitna zavrnitev vkrcanja na letalo ne zadostuje temu kriteriju. Judikature, ki bi razjasnila ta dvom, zaenkrat še ni. Member States of the EU make it difficult for foreigners, including asylum seekers, to access their territory by air in many ways. This is also due to the European system of carrier sanctions, which requires carriers to ensure that the passengers are in possession of the travel documents required for entry into the territories of the Contracting Parties and impose penalties on carriers which transport aliens who do not possess the necessary travel documents. In fulfilling these obligations, airlines are assisted by the liaison officers, whose duty it is to offer them advice and assistance in deciding whether a person has all the necessary documents to enter the EU territory and can therefore board an aircraft. By delegating migration control tasks to airlines, countries appear to ensure that potential asylum seekers do not reach their territory at all, thus relieving themselves of responsibility for any breaches of obligations under international law. The migration conduct at airports, which is carried out directly by airline staff, is attributable to States in accordance with the rules of international law, however, their liability for possible breaches of international legal obligations and potential interference with refugee rights is questionable. States are liable for acts committed outside their borders only on condition that it can be established that they have exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction over individuals. For the time being, international practice is of the opinion that the state exercises extraterritorial jurisdiction over individuals only in cases where entities acting on behalf of the state have a high degree of control over them. Therefore, the prevailing opinion in the literature is that the control of travel documents and the possible refusal to board an aircraft is not sufficient for this criterion. There is no jurisprudence to clarify this doubt yet.