Case summaries
The Dublin regulations do not allow for priority to be given to the processing of different types of transfer applications. In particular, there is no priority which favours a transfer application made on the Applicant’s own initiative as compared to one which is ordered by administrative compulsion. In deciding the application, the executing authority must allow the Applicant to transfer without administrative compulsion if it appears certain that (i) the Applicant will voluntarily travel to the Member State responsible for reviewing his application and, (ii) will report in a timely manner to the responsible authority. A transfer without administrative compulsion is not a deportation (Abschiebung), and therefore does not result in a statutory ban on entry and residence under Sec. 11 of the Residence Act (Aufenthaltsgesetz).
The case examined the allegations of an Afghan national that his isolated living condition in the detention centre of Otopeni in Romania constituted inhumane treatment, in violation of article 3 of the Convention. He further alleged a violation of Article 5 para 4 with regards to his right to an effective remedy to challenge the effectiveness of his detention. In addition, he complained of an excessive time period in detention (more than a year).
Upon preliminary examination, it cannot be excluded that a decision of an administrative court, limited to making a Dublin transfer conditional upon the assurance of the competent authorities in the country of destination that accommodation will be provided for the family in question, violates the right to an effective remedy under Art. 19(4)(1) of the Basic Law.
Since the removal might lead to severe disadvantages for the applicants which cannot easily be compensated for and which outweigh the consequences of a preliminarily prolonged presence of the persons concerned, the removal has to be suspended until the Federal Constitutional Court has reached its final decision.
Interventions from third parties to proceedings initiated before the National Asylum Court may be admitted.
A person with refugee status in one European Union state who applies for refugee status in a second European Union state is presumed to have unfounded fears relating to lack of protection. However, that presumption may be rebutted by evidence to the contrary.
It is an administrative appeal brought before the High National Court against the Ministry of the Interior’s decision to deny an examination of the application for international protection by a claimant of Pakistani nationality, on the basis that Germany is responsible for the examination in accord with EU Regulation 343/2003 of 18th February (Dublin Regulation).
The High National Court had not yet evaluated the basis of the application for international protection because, before doing so, an obstacle to the proceedings arose:this concerned the determination of the country responsible for examining the application and, in particular, the breach of the legal time period for the transfer of this responsibility (a maximum period of 6 months for the transfer).
If there is a country that meets the criteria for being a 'safe third country', an asylum application may be rejected. If the application is not rejected, the examination must take place in accordance with the asylum-seeker's application, and the applicant may not be denied leave to remain with reference to a safe third country.
A Russian Federation citizen arrived in Finland from another EU country (Lithuania) where he/she alleged that he/she had been persecuted and claimed international protection on this basis. The Immigration Service denied the Applicant a residence permit, failed to examine the application for international protection and decided to deport him/her to Lithuania. The Immigration Service considered Lithuania to be a safe third country and the application for international protection was not examined in relation to his/her country of origin. The Supreme Administrative Court took the view that the issue of international protection could not be dealt with in Lithuania as the grounds for the application were cited as persecution in that same country. The Administrative Court was ordered to overturn the Immigration Service’s decision and return the case back for further consideration.
If a subsequent application for international protection is submitted, the administrative authority must evaluate whether the applicant has presented any new facts that, through no fault of the applicant, had not been the subject of examination in the previous proceeding. Otherwise, the application is inadmissible and the proceedings must be stopped.
During the refugee status proceedings, the administrative authorities should clarify on what grounds a foreign husband has received protection in another country. These circumstances should be assessed consistently in two countries.
There are no objective reasons why the respective positions of two individuals should be viewed differently merely because they have applied for refugee status in two different democratic countries that respect human rights.
The administrative authorities, when carrying out an assessment of whether a subsequent application for refugee status is inadmissible (based on the same grounds), should compare the factual basis for the administrative case on which a final decision has been made with the testimony of the foreignor provided in the subsequent application and should also examine whether the situation in the country of origin of the applicant and also the legal position have changed.