Case summaries

Detention pending Dublin transfer can only be ordered on the basis of Article 28 Dublin-III-Regulation, which contains autonomous provisions on the detention of foreigner. Additional criteria laid down by national laws are required in order to specify the condition of "risk of absconding". A deportation detention order that does not even refer to Art. 28 Dublin-III-Regulation is unlawful.

The court may reject the request for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU when the provision is clear (acte clair), only if it checks that the clarity of the contested provision is equally obvious to the courts of other Member States and the CJEU, taking into account the characteristics of EU law and special problems posed by its interpretation, including a comparison of all language versions, respecting the specific terminology of EU law and the placement of the interpretation in the context of EU law.

The Constitutional Court annulled the contested judgment because of the infringement of the right to equal protection of rights in connection to the right to an effective remedy.

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.

An applicant’s interest in remaining in a Member State pending a decision on their right to remain will prevail if, due to a lack of knowledge about the actual living situation of refugees in the third country and negative public reports regarding such situations, there can be no assurance that the applicant will be safe in said third country.

In light of the provisions of Article 5 Dublin III Regulation, which serve to protect the asylum seeker in a Dublin transfer, the individual subject to a Dublin transfer decision must be seen to have a subjective right to a personal interview. Before such an interview, which must take into account the subjective perspective of the individual, has been conducted in a manner which meets the criteria of Article 5 of Dublin III, the authorities cannot conclude that no obstructions to the removal are present. 

The court found that the removal of a Somali applicant to Italy under the Dublin Regulation would not result in a violation of article 3of the Convention and would not entail any violation of the rights set in article 1, 2, 5, 6 and 13.

Where negative reports regarding the reception conditions and inhuman or degrading treatment in a first country of asylum indicate that an Applicant may not be safe in such a country, an Applicant’s request to remain in a Member State pending a decision on their right to remain must be given the benefit of doubt and outweigh the public’s interest in immediate enforcement of the ordered transfer.

In Dublin Transfer matters handled by the Migration Board, an Applicant may have the right to Legal Aid even though this right is not specifically provided in the Dublin III Regulation. In such cases, the right to Legal Aid will be provided pursuant to the Swedish Aliens Act and will depend on factors such as indications that a transfer should not occur due to circumstances in the receiving Member State or other reasons which would make it inappropriate to execute the transfer.

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.