Poland - Judgement of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw from 10 October 2014 no IV SA/Wa 997/14 dismissing the complaint against the decision of the Refugee Board on discontinuing the asylum procedure
| Country of Decision: | Poland |
| Court name: | The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw |
| Date of decision: | 10-10-2014 |
| Citation: | IV SA/Wa 997/14 |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Effective access to procedures
Description
Effective access to legal and administrative procedures undertaken by UNHCR and/or States in accordance with the Asylum Procedures Directive to determine whether an individual should be recognized as a refugee in accordance with national and international law. |
|
Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Description
A form of serious harm for the purposes of the granting of subsidiary protection. The Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in Celibici defined cruel or inhuman treatment as ‘an intentional act or omission, that is an act which, judged objectively, is deliberate and not accidental, that causes serious mental or physical suffering or injury or constitutes a serious attack on human dignity.’ “Ill-treatment means all forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including corporal punishment, which deprives the individual of its physical and mental integrity." |
|
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." |
Headnote:
The Court ruled that under national law the authorities are obliged to issue a decision on discontinuing the procedure if another Member State is responsible for the application. The provision leaves no margin of discretion. The authorities had no obligation to examine the way that the other State treats asylum seekers, if it is a Member State of the EU and applies European standards of dealing with third country nationals.
In the situation where the other State decided to accept the responsibility and examine the application, it should be understood that they examined its admissibility in the light of the Dublin II Regulation, taking into account the time that the applicant spent away from that State.
Facts:
The applicant applied for asylum in Poland. In June 2013 the Head of the Office for Foreigner decided to discontinue the procedure because in April 2013 another Member State accepted the responsibility for examining the asylum application under the Dublin II Regulation. The Refugee Board dismissed his appeal. The applicant lodged a complaint to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw, claiming that he resided in the other Member State in 2007 and did not apply for asylum there, so taking into account Article 10 of the Dublin II Regulation, the responsibility had ceased. He also stated that reception conditions in this other Member State (reference to which is deleted in the judgment) are criticised as they do not fulfill fundamental international human rights standards.
Decision & reasoning:
The Court ruled that taking into account all the relevant facts about the applicant’s residence in several other Member States, it was justifiable for the Head of the Office for Foreigners to send a request for accepting the responsibility under the Dublin Regulation. Since the request was accepted, issuing the decision on discontinuing the asylum procedure was justified under article 19 of the Dublin II Regulation. Under article 41 of the law on granting the protection to foreigners in the territory of the Republic of Poland, the authority is obliged to issue a decision on discontinuing the procedure if another Member State is responsible for the application. The provision leaves no margin of discretion. The authorities had no obligation to examine the way that the other State treats asylum seekers, if it is a Member State of the EU and applies European standards of dealing with third country nationals.
The Court does not understand the argument, that the authorities should somehow refer to the decision of the other Member State’s authorities to accept the responsibility. If this State obliged itself to examine the asylum claim of the applicant, the transfer procedure was duly launched. Only if the State refused to accept the application, the Polish authorities would be obliged to examine it. In the situation where the other State decided to accept the responsibility and examine the application, it should be understood that they examined its admissibility in the light of the Dublin II Regulation, taking into account the time that the applicant spent away from that State.
The Court observed ex officio that on the day of issuing the decision by the appeal authority (the Refugee Board), the Dublin II Regulation was no longer in force. However it had no influence on the outcome of the case since the other Member State accepted the request before the Dublin III Regulation came into force.
Outcome:
Confirming the decision of the Refugee Board on discontinuing the procedure.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Cited National Legislation:
| Cited National Legislation |
| Poland - Article 41 of the Law of 13 June 2003 on granting protection to foreigners in the territory of the Republic of Poland (before amendments from 13 November 2015) |