Sweden - Migration Court of Appeal, 3 August 2016, UM 6579-15

Facts:

The applicant (the “Applicant”) applied for asylum in Sweden in December 2014. The Swedish migration agency (the “Migration Agency”) rejected the application and decided to transfer the Applicant to Germany after it was revealed that the Applicant previously had applied for asylum in Germany, arguing that the health conditions and the situation in general in Germany did not constitute a reason to refrain from applying the Dublin III Regulation.

The Applicant appealed the Migration Agency’s decision. In connection with the transfer of the case to the Swedish migration court (the “Migration Court”) the Migration Agency decided to cancel the execution of the transfer until further notice in accordance with the Aliens Act (2005:716) and the Dublin III Regulation.

The Migration Court agreed with the Migration Agency’s decision and rejected the appeal and repealed the decision of inhibition.

The Applicant appealed the Migration Court’s decision arguing that the Migration Agency cannot issue a decision on suspension with the effect that the six months’ time limitation for transferring an applicant to the responsible membership state as stipulated in the Dublin III Regulation is prolonged, and at the time when the Migration Court ruled in the Applicant’s case, the time limitation for transferring the Applicant to Germany had expired.

Decision & reasoning:

The court of appeal in Stockholm (the “Court of Appeal”) initially noted that according to previous case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union, an applicant may include other deficiencies than systemic deficiencies when appealing a decision of transfer in accordance with the Dublin III Regulation, provided that the alleged deficiencies have relevance for the process of establishing the responsible Member State.

The Court of Appeal noted that the question if the time limit for transfer of an applicant according to article 29.1 Dublin III Regulation had expired is not relevant when determining the responsible Member State under the Dublin III Regulation and shall therefore not form part of the court’s examination of an appeal of a transfer decision under the Dublin III Regulation. In the light thereof the Court of Appeal concluded that the Migration Court had not acted incorrectly when it did not examine if the time limit for transferring the Applicant to Germany had expired.

Outcome:

The Applicant’s appeal was rejected.

Observations/comments:

This case summary was written by Linklaters LLP.

This case summary was proof read by Samuel Palmer.