Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
Germany - Administrative Court of Cologne, 02 June 2015, case no. 16 K 2829/14.A
Country of applicant: Iran

When enforcing the Dublin III Regulation, the deporting country must verify whether the asylum procedure in the intermediary country sufficiently guarantees that the applicant will not be subject to a treatment which violates Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The deportation order was illegitimate due to inadequate conditions for the reception of asylum seekers and recognised refugees in Greece and the serious risk of inhuman or degrading treatment for asylum seekers and recognised refugees in Greece.

 

Date of decision: 02-06-2015
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,European Union Law,International Law,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003,EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,Article 2,(d),Article 4,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3,Article 13,EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation),Article 20,EN - Recast Qualification Directive, Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011
CJEU - C-648/11 The Queen on the application of MA, BT, DA v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Country of applicant: Eritrea, Iraq

This case concerns the interpretation of Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 when an unaccompanied child submits more than one asylum application in two Member States and does not have any family members present in the territories of the Member States. In such circumstances the CJEU held that the responsible Member State is the one in which the child is present after having lodged an asylum application there.

Date of decision: 06-06-2013
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 25,Art 1A,Art 24.2,Recital (3),Recital (4),Recital (15),(c),(d),(h),1.,2.,Article 5,Article 6,Article 13
Slovenia - Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, 10 October 2012, Up-21/11

As the Republic of Slovenia agreed to readmit the Applicant in accordance with the terms defined in the Dublin Convention, he should be treated as an applicant for international protection from the moment he entered the country. Taking this into account, it was not acceptable to apply measures that are stipulated in the legislation for foreigners who did not apply for international protection. The Applicant’s freedom of movement could be restricted only under the terms and conditions that are used for Applicants for international protection.

In the case at hand there were no grounds on which to restrict the Applicant’s right to personal freedom. By housing the Applicant in an Asylum Centre for a disputed period of time, his right to personal freedom was unacceptably restricted.

Date of decision: 10-10-2012
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 2,Article 2,(d),Article 16,1.,Article 20