Sweden - Migration Court of Appeal, 14 June 2013, UM2306-13, MIG 2013:9
| Country of Decision: | Sweden |
| Court name: | Administrative Court of Appeal in Stockholm, Migration Court of Appeal |
| Date of decision: | 14-06-2013 |
| Citation: | UM2306-13 |
| Additional citation: | MIG 2013:9 |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Responsibility for examining application
Description
The Member State responsible for examining an application for asylum is determined in accordance with the criteria contained in Chapter III Dublin II Regulation in the order in which they are set out in that Chapter and on the basis of the situation obtaining when the asylum seeker first lodged his application with a Member State. |
|
Dublin Transfer
Description
"The transfer of responsibility for the examination of an asylum application from one Member State to another Member State. Such a transfer typically also includes the physical transport of an asylum applicant to the Member State responsible in cases where the applicant is in another Member State and/or has lodged an application in this latter Member State (Article 19(3) of Council Regulation (EC) 343/2003). The determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application is done on the basis of objective and hierarchical criteria, as laid out in Chapter III of Council Regulation (EC) 343/2003." |
|
Residence document
Description
“any authorisation issued by the authorities of a Member State authorising a third-country national to stay in its territory, including the documents substantiating the authorisation to remain in the territory under temporary protection arrangements or until the circumstances preventing a removal order from being carried out no longer apply, with the exception of visas and residence authorisations issued during the period required to determine the responsible Member State as established in this Regulation or during examination of an application for asylum or an application for a residence permit” |
Headnote:
Sweden assumes responsibility for substantively examining an asylum application from when the Applicant is granted a temporary residence document. A decision on transfer under the Dublin Regulation was overturned, and the case was returned to the Swedish Migration Board.
Facts:
A applied for asylum in Sweden in September 2012. The Swedish Migration Board decided in November 2012 to reject A's application for a residence document and a work permit in Sweden and to return him to Italy in accordance with the Dublin Regulation, as it has emerged that he had entered Italy illegally. In February 2013, A was granted a temporary residence permit in Sweden. A then appealed against the Swedish Migration Board's decision, to the Migration Court, which rejected the appeal on the grounds that the temporary residence document was irrelevant to the examination of which country was responsible for examining his asylum application. On the other hand, it was noted that the residence document could be relevant to the enforcement of any transfer to Italy. A appealed against the judgment to the Migration Court of Appeal.
Decision & reasoning:
The Migration Court of Appeal began by referring to the definition of 'residence document' in accordance with Article 2(j) of the Dublin Regulation, which indicates that it refers to any authorisation issued in a Member State authorising a third-country national to stay in its territory. It then noted that Article 16(2) of the Dublin Regulation stipulates that a Member State that issues a residence document to the asylum seeker assumes the responsibilities indicated in Article 16(1). Furthermore, it was noted that Article 16(1)(b) states that the Member State responsible for examining an application under the criteria set out in the Dublin Regulation is obliged to complete the examination of the application.
The Migration Court of Appeal concluded that the provisions set out in the Dublin Regulation mean that responsibility for examining A's asylum application was transferred to Sweden when he was granted a temporary residence document. The Swedish authorities are thus obliged to examine his asylum application substantively. The decision to transfer him was overturned, and the case was returned to the Swedish Migration Board for re-examination.
Outcome:
The appeal was upheld.