Case summaries

This inadmissibility decision concerned the transfer of Mrs. Hussein and her children to Italy from the Netherlands under the Dublin II Regulation. The Court found the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 ECHR and Article 13 ECHR as manifestly unfounded within the meaning of Article 35(3)(a) of the Convention. The Court found that though there were shortcomings in Italy it did not disclose systemic failures to provide support for asylum seekers there. 

Once the Applicant states in his application for international protection that his human rights and fundamental freedoms would be violated if he was returned to the recipient country (in this case Bulgaria) in accordance with the Dublin Regulation, the Respondentmust verify whether any systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and reception conditions constitute reasonable grounds for believing that the Applicant would be exposed to a real danger of inhuman and degrading treatment in the sense of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Foreigners who have lodged an application for international protection cannot be taken into detention pending deportation as a person remaining in the country unlawfully.

If a more recent application for international protection has been lodged in the transfer country, then the Applicant will again be assigned the status of an asylum seeker in accordance with the Dublin II Regulation. The (re-)receiving country must undertake an examination of the application for asylum made in another Member State, even if it is a “subsequent application”.

The Council of State applied the reasoning employed by the CJEU in its ruling C-179-11 of 27 September 2012 and considered that temporary waiting allowance must be paid to asylum applicants subject to the Dublin II Regulation until they have actually been transferred to the Member State responsible for their asylum application. 

An asylum seeker cannot be considered to have ‘absconded’ within the meaning of the Dublin II Regulation because they failed to respond to a request to come to a police station in order to regularise their situation as an asylum seeker.

Failure to integrate into the country, which is typically the case, does not constitute grounds for protection. Behaviour a long time previously in relation to the entry is not significant when assessing security requirements. Aggressive behaviour in the Federal Support Centre does not alone represent a need for security which justifies detention (deportation detention). Despite removal from the Federal Support Centre owing to this behaviour, this must not lead to an asylum seeker losing his entitlement to basic services.

This case concerns the interpretation and application of Article 15 of the Dublin Regulation, commonly known as the humanitarian clause, in a specific set of circumstances where the asylum seeker concerned has a daughter in law who is seriously ill, and on account of cultural factors, at risk or has grandchildren below the age of majority, who, as a result of the daughter-in-law’s illness are in need of care and the asylum seeker concerned is both willing and able to support them. The CJEU held in circumstances such as those Article 15(2) must be interpreted so as to make that Member State responsible for the asylum seekers claim. This is applicable even if the Member State which was responsible pursuant to the criteria laid down in Chapter III of the Regulation did not make that request.

Malta’s failure to respect the minimum conditions set for asylum seekers creates a situation in which the requirements stipulated by Italian law for suspending transfers under the Dublin II Regulation can be considered to have been met when waiting for a final decision on an appeal against such a transfer.

As the Republic of Slovenia agreed to readmit the Applicant in accordance with the terms defined in the Dublin Convention, he should be treated as an applicant for international protection from the moment he entered the country. Taking this into account, it was not acceptable to apply measures that are stipulated in the legislation for foreigners who did not apply for international protection. The Applicant’s freedom of movement could be restricted only under the terms and conditions that are used for Applicants for international protection.

In the case at hand there were no grounds on which to restrict the Applicant’s right to personal freedom. By housing the Applicant in an Asylum Centre for a disputed period of time, his right to personal freedom was unacceptably restricted.

This case concerned the legality of a circular in French law which was challenged by two organisations on the basis that it was contrary to EU Law under the Reception Conditions Directive in so far as it excludes asylum seekers from entitlement to allowances if they are in the Dublin procedure in France. The CJEU held that the Reception Conditions Directive applies in such a scenario and therefore asylum seekers in the Dublin procedure should have access to the minimum reception conditions laid down in that Directive. This obligation ceases when the person is actually transferred to another Member State.