{"id":547,"date":"2016-01-31T09:49:23","date_gmt":"2016-01-31T08:49:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/?post_type=publication&#038;p=547"},"modified":"2025-09-10T11:19:45","modified_gmt":"2025-09-10T09:19:45","slug":"dublin-et-les-deux-cours-supranationales-europeennes-echange-constructif-ou-dialogue-de-sourds","status":"publish","type":"publication","link":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/publication\/dublin-et-les-deux-cours-supranationales-europeennes-echange-constructif-ou-dialogue-de-sourds\/","title":{"rendered":"\u00ab Dublin \u00bb et les deux Cours supranationales europ\u00e9ennes : \u00e9change constructif ou dialogue de sourds ?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Extrait<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>En raison de sa nature trans- et internationale m\u00eame, le domaine de l\u2019asile constitue un terrain particuli\u00e8rement f\u00e9cond pour le dialogue entre juges. Initi\u00e9 par l\u2019adoption de la Convention de Gen\u00e8ve relative au statut des\u00a0 r\u00e9fugi\u00e9s en 1951, ce dialogue est devenu indispensable avec la mise en place du r\u00e9gime d\u2019asile europ\u00e9en commun (RAEC). Dans ce cadre, tant la Cour europ\u00e9enne des droits de l\u2019homme que la Cour de justice de l\u2019Union europ\u00e9enne ont \u00e9t\u00e9 amen\u00e9es \u00e0 examiner la port\u00e9e du principe de la confiance mutuelle, pierre angulaire du RAEC. Plus pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment, la question centrale a \u00e9t\u00e9 \u2013 et est toujours \u2013 de savoir dans quelle mesure les droits conventionnels et fondamentaux obligent les Etats \u00e0 d\u00e9roger au principe de la confiance mutuelle. La pr\u00e9sente contribution analyse l\u2019int\u00e9ressant dialogue jurisprudentiel qui est n\u00e9 en r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 cette question. Dans ce cadre, nous observerons dans un premier temps que malgr\u00e9 des r\u00f4les diff\u00e9rents, la jurisprudence des deux Cours a \u00e9volu\u00e9 dans un premier temps de mani\u00e8re parall\u00e8le, pr\u00e9sentant de nombreuses similitudes. Ce constat doit toutefois \u00eatre nuanc\u00e9, dans un second temps, \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re du dialogue r\u00e9cent, mettant en lumi\u00e8re diff\u00e9rentes tensions entre les deux juridictions, allant jusqu\u2019\u00e0 une \u00e9ventuelle rupture, qui peut \u00eatre relativis\u00e9e \u00e0 son tour.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>By its very nature, the field of asylum law is a particularly fertile ground for judiciary dialogue. Initiated by the adoption of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees in 1951, this dialogue has become essential with the implementation of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). In this context, both the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union have had to examine the scope of the principle of mutual trust, cornerstone of the CEAS. More specifically, the crucial question was &#8211; and still is \u2013 if and to what extent Convention and Charter rights can oblige states to derogate from the principle of mutual trust. This paper analyses the interesting jurisprudential dialogue that followed from the different ways in which Europe\u2019s two Courts have answered the question.<\/p>\n<p>In this context, we will first observe that despite the different roles of the two Courts, many similarities can be found in their respective case law. This first finding must however be qualified in light of the recent dialogue, highlighting various tensions between the two jurisdictions, and a possible rupture. This second finding can be relativized in turn.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><a title=\"Zimmermann.pdf\" href=\"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/ZIMMERMANN_Final-2019.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Acc\u00e8s au texte &#8211; Access to full text<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","publication_tax":[47],"class_list":["post-547","publication","type-publication","status-publish","hentry","publication_tax-working-paper"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication\/547","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/publication"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication\/547\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":549,"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication\/547\/revisions\/549"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=547"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"publication_tax","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication_tax?post=547"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}