The Quebecois people in Europe are making decisions in the EU asylum system contrary to fact and law as actual Canadian fugitives or British National fugitives where their decisions impact the rights of those asylum seekers, affected by these actions of the fugitives and where the decision has impact on EU law, the EU legal system and its functionality involving the rights of those asylum seekers, escaping financial genocide where people are not receiving their income support and other evidence of targeting the applicant based on his or her characteristics maybe as a black person or person of colour. The Quebecois fugitives are demeaning and devaluing the EU system of law and its credibility. Click here.

 The Quebecois people in Europe are making decisions in the EU asylum system contrary to fact and law as actual Canadian fugitives or British National fugitives where their decisions impact the rights of those asylum seekers, affected by these  actions of the fugitives and where the decision has impact  on EU law, the EU legal system and its functionality involving the rights of those asylum seekers, escaping financial genocide  where people are not receiving their income support and other evidence of targeting the applicant based on his or her characteristics maybe as a black  person or person of colour.  The Quebecois fugitives are demeaning and devaluing the EU system of law and its credibility.  

One prominent international jurist described the UDHR as being "universally regarded as expounding generally accepted norms."^[77] Other legal scholars have further argued that the Declaration constitutes jus cogens, fundamental principles of international law from which no state may deviate or derogate.^[78] The 1968 United Nations International Conference on Human Rights advised that the Declaration "constitutes an obligation for the members of the international community" to all persons.^[79]

The Declaration has served as the foundation for two binding United Nations human rights covenants: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The principles of the Declaration are elaborated in other binding international treaties such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and many more. The Declaration continues to be widely cited by governments, academics, advocates, and constitutional courts, and by individuals who appeal to its principles for the protection of their recognized human rights.^[80]

Warren is a part of Generation Adam Smith.  

1.3.1.2 Review in fact and in law by a judicial body In some EU+ countries, the first appeal instance examines and decides on the case de novo (in fact and in law), while in others it only decides on the legality of the first instance decision. Thus, in some EU+ countries, the relevant second instance (i.e. first appeal instance) bodies take decisions on the merits of each application, while in others they order the first instance body to review its first instance decision (EASO 2018, p 62). Article 46 of the recast APD requires Member States to set a full and ex nunc examination of facts and points of law at least in appeals procedures before a court or tribunal of first instance (Art 46 (3)). In the six countries, the first appeal instance has the possibility to review the case in detail – thus in facts and law. Evidently, the higher the appeals instance the less the courts decide on substance, instead they review the legality of the decision, as well as cases of higher interest. The question at what level a review of facts and law should be allowed has been answered differently in the interviews. In fact, in Germany the administrative appeals instance was abolished by the constitutional court in the 1980s since it prevented the administrative court from the establishment (not just appraisal) of facts in asylum cases (Interview_DE_1). This was found to be in contradiction with legal principles. 1.3.1.3 Time limits Time limits for lodging an appeal The recast APD asks member states to provide reasonable time limits for the applicant to exercise the right for an effective remedy: any “time limits shall not render such exercise impossible or excessively difficult” (Art 46 (4)). The APR proposal, however, changes this and sets time limits for lodging appeals depending on the qualification of the application. Table 6. Time limits for lodging an appeal as proposed by the APR proposal Time limits for different types of appeals as foreseen in the Asylum Procedures Regulation proposal (Art 53 (6)) Time limit Appeals against decision rejecting a subsequent application as inadmissible or manifestly unfounded; 1 week Appeals against a decision rejecting an application as inadmissible or in the case of a decision rejecting an application as explicitly withdrawn or as abandoned, or in the case of a decision rejecting an application as unfounded or manifestly unfounded in relation to refugee or subsidiary protection status following an accelerated examination procedure or border procedure or while the applicant is held in detention; 2 weeks Appeals against decisions rejecting an application as unfounded if the examination is not accelerated or in the case of a decision withdrawing international protection. 1 month With the time-limits introduced in the APR proposal, the EC intends to ensure the effectiveness of the appeal procedure and connect it with the necessity of free legal assistance and representation (see COM(2016) 467 final, p 7). The six countries foresee a wide range of different time limits.