Case summaries

The Applicant appealed a decision ordering his transfer to another Member State responsible for examining his application for international protection because the six-month period during which his transfer had to be carried out in accordance with Regulation (EU) no. 604/2013 known as “Dublin III” (the “Dublin III Regulation”) had expired. 

The Council of State denied the appeal holding that the six-month period was interrupted by the legal action against the transfer measure but had not restarted because the appeal was still pending when the Préfet issued the Dublin III summons to the Applicant.

Art. 2 lit. (n) of the Dublin III Regulation requires objective criteria defined by domestic law for the ‘risk of absconding’, which is a necessary requirement for the imposition of detention pending transfer according to Art. 28 (2) of the Dublin III Regulation.

The domestic legal provision of § 76 (2) FPG lacks the necessary objective criteria defined by law for the ‘risk of absconding’ according to the Dublin III Regulation and is therefore not a sufficient legal basis for detention pending deportation in a transfer procedure according to Art. 28 (2) Dublin III Regulation.

A Member State is responsible for the asylum application of an unaccompanied minor if the minor does not have a family member in said Member State and the minor's application has been finally rejected in another Member State, provided that the unaccompanied minor resides in the relevant Member State.

The responsibility for examining an application does not cease to apply upon the mere acceptance of a request to take charge by another Member State.

This case examined the compatibility of the Dublin II Regulation with the European Convention on Human Rights regarding transfers to Italy under the Dublin II Regulation.

The Court found a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights if the Swiss authorities were to send an Afghan couple and their six children back to Italy under the Dublin Regulation without having first obtained individual guarantees from the Italian authorities that the applicants would be taken charge of in a manner adapted to the age of the children and that the family would be kept together.

The contested judgment is unconstitutional as it does not provide a clear way of assessing the jurisdiction of the third country when dealing with the application. It also reveals that the situation of the Applicant for international protection is unclear in the event that the application is rejected by the third country and the Applicant is not allowed to enter its territory, and shows that it is unclear as to what the Applicant can contest in this procedure.

An efficient legal system that would stop the extradition to a country in which the Applicant could be exposed to inhuman treatment has to have suspensive effect.

It is not the case that in autumn 2008 the Austrian authorities ought to have known that serious deficiencies in the Greek asylum system risked a violation of the Applicant’s Article 3 rights if transferred to Greece under the Dublin procedure.

According to section 51 of the Aliens Act, third-country nationals residing in Finland are issued with a temporary residence permit if they cannot be returned to their home country or country of permanent residence for temporary reasons of health or if they cannot be removed from the country.

This case concerned whether it was necessary that there was an enforceable decision to remove the person when the Immigration Service examined the requirements for a residence permit under section 51. The Court considered whether the Immigration Service should examine if there are in reality obstacles to the removal of a person, before it makes a decision to remove this person.

This ruling concerned the determination of the Member State responsible when the Member State primarily designated as responsible according to the criteria in the Dublin II Regulation has systemic deficiencies leading to substantial grounds for believing that the asylum seeker facing transfer there would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter. It does not in itself mean that the determining Member State is required to examine the asylum application under Article 3(2) but must further examine the criteria under Chapter III of the Regulation. 

In this case there was a serious risk that the Applicants’ asylum claims, which in principle should have been readmitted in Hungary in accordance with the Dublin II Regulation, would not be dealt with by the Hungarian authorities in accordance with all the guarantees required by the respect for the right to asylum. The French authorities therefore needed to grant them a temporary right of residence for asylum-related reasons.

The case examines the allegations of an Afghan national that the extension of his detention for an additional two months had been unlawful and contrary to Article 5(1) of the Convention and that he had not had at his disposal an effective remedy for the review of his detention in violation of Article 5(4) ECHR.