Spain - High National Court, 19 May 2010, 632/2009
| Country of Decision: | Spain |
| Country of applicant: | Afghanistan |
| Court name: | High National Court |
| Date of decision: | 19-05-2010 |
| Citation: | 632/2009 |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
First country of asylum
Description
"A country can be considered to be a first country of asylum for a particular applicant for asylum if: (a) he/she has been recognised in that country as a refugee and he/she can still avail himself/herself of that protection; or (b) he/she otherwise enjoys sufficient protection in that country, including benefiting from the principle of non-refoulement; provided that he/she will be re-admitted to that country." Member States may consider an application for asylum as inadmissible if a country which is not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum for the applicant. |
Headnote:
The case concerned an appeal before the High National Court against the decision of the Spanish Asylum and Refugee Office (Ministry of Interior) rejecting an application for refugee status based on the fact that the applicant entered the EU through Greece. Therefore, following the Dublin II Regulation, Greece would be the responsible country for examining the application for asylum. The High National Court stated that after passing the six month period established by Art 19.3 of the Regulation CE/343/2003 without executing the transfer of the applicant to a Member State considered responsible for the examination, Spain was the responsible country for the case.
Facts:
The applicant alleged to have suffered persecution by the Afghan authorities as a result of carrying out activities such as selling alcohol. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison in Kunduz. He managed to escape from prison by paying a bribe.The application was accepted in the preliminary examination phase. At the second stage the application was rejected by the Ministry of Interior arguing that the applicant entered the EU through Greek borders and, consequently, Greece was responsible for the examination of the asylum application pursuant to the 343/2003 Regulation (Dublin II) to which Spain is a party. After requesting Greece to take charge of the decision, Spain considered that the lack of response was equivalent to a tacit acceptance.
Decision & reasoning:
The decision was appealed before the High National Court. The applicant argued that the period established (6 months) to execute the transfer of the applicant to the first country of asylum had been exceeded.The High National Court ruled that the period of six months established under Art 19.3 of the 343/2003 Regulation (Dublin II Regulation) was indeed applicable. It was sufficiently proven that the applicant’s entry into Spain took place more than six months ago and the applicant continued to reside in Spain. Therefore, the Member State responsible for examining the asylum application was the country in which the application had been submitted, Spain.
Outcome:
Without analysing the content of the application the High National Court ruled that Spain was the responsible country for examining the asylum application.
Subsequent proceedings:
The Attorney General prepared an appeal before the Supreme Court that was contested by the applicant.The Attorney General did not finally support it, and the Supreme Court declared the appeal void.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Cited Cases:
| Cited Cases |
| ECtHR - S.D. v Greece (Application no. 53541/07) |
Other sources:
UNHCR Position on the Return of Asylum-Seekers to Greece under the Dublin Regulation, 15 April 2008