[ad_1]
The judgment of the Malmö Migration Court on the "secondary or secondary law" (objective UM 14195-17) attracted legitimate attention. In summary, the Court concluded that the law on higher education or higher education was so flawed that it could not be applied, which is in line with previous criticism of the law. .
It may be controversial in that a court refuses to apply a team with clear deficiencies. However, some of the arguments of the Migration Court should also be judged by a higher court, namely the Migration Appeal Court (MÖD).
In the judgment, was denied the opportunity to give asylum seekers or residence permits for protective reasons or extremely embarrassing circumstances fairly quickly. The possibility of granting a residence permit in accordance with the 2016 law on higher education or higher education in its controversial version of July 1, 2018 is fully highlighted
This is 39 applies in particular to the new 16f of the law on compulsory or higher education. However, for reasons of protection, they can still obtain a residence permit under certain conditions, mainly when they are registered as children upon their arrival in Sweden, that the treatment has ended on the grounds that they are considered as adults when they study or refuse to study. Residence permits can then be granted under the third paragraph of the new provision even if the identity of the applicant is not fully released.
After a fairly comprehensive review of how government offices processed and prepared this legislation in 2018, the court chose to enforce its law (see chapter 11, section 14, government form) and to do not apply this new legal provision. The part of the new provision that is rejected is the third paragraph requirement that a residence permit may be granted even if the identity of the applicant is not clear.
The court ruled that this was contrary to the right to asylum. As a result, the applicant could not identify himself, so he could not obtain a residence permit under the new controversial provision.
In this part the judgment appears clear and clear, though perhaps controversial. Since the new law on limitation or high school was controversial in the spring of 2018, that is to say before it began to apply, a trial seems anxious in the meetings .
Moreover, the judgment of the Migration Court is not clear. the extent to which the court disapproves of and refuses to apply the new rule because it is not viable on the merits or because the preparation of the proposal has been inadequate, as the court l & # 39; 39, judged for a long time. This last argument is, in my opinion, considerably weaker
The question of the non-preparation (19459004) of the legitimacy of a team was updated in the issue of border controls at Öresund 2015, which it's really unrolled. just a few reference days for a few cases. The Board of Governors strongly criticized it, but the law itself is not necessarily constitutional just because the preparation broke out. The content of the team is absolutely crucial.
My conclusion, therefore, is that the Migration Court had good reason to give its verdict, but that it had too much invested the problem of the lack of preparation for the new limitation or secondary school. It would be good for MEETING to clarify whether that in itself could lead to unconstitutional law or not. Otherwise, it is difficult to ask what MEET can do.
This is an opinion piece published in Today's Society. The opinions expressed in the article are the writers / writers for.
[ad_2]
Source link
