Case summaries

This case concerns the interpretation and application of Article 15 of the Dublin Regulation, commonly known as the humanitarian clause, in a specific set of circumstances where the asylum seeker concerned has a daughter in law who is seriously ill, and on account of cultural factors, at risk or has grandchildren below the age of majority, who, as a result of the daughter-in-law’s illness are in need of care and the asylum seeker concerned is both willing and able to support them. The CJEU held in circumstances such as those Article 15(2) must be interpreted so as to make that Member State responsible for the asylum seekers claim. This is applicable even if the Member State which was responsible pursuant to the criteria laid down in Chapter III of the Regulation did not make that request.

Malta’s failure to respect the minimum conditions set for asylum seekers creates a situation in which the requirements stipulated by Italian law for suspending transfers under the Dublin II Regulation can be considered to have been met when waiting for a final decision on an appeal against such a transfer.

The Helsinki Supreme Administrative Court decided  that Finland cannot return an Iraqi asylum seeker to Sweden, where he/she faces the risk of being sent back to Baghdad and may be subjected to violations of his/her human rights. The  Supreme Administrative Courtdecided that the ruling of the Finnish Immigration Service had to be reversed and the application for asylum had to be substantively examined in Finland. 

This was an appeal against the decision to transfer an applicant to Hungary, when that applicant had first entered the EU through Greece. The argument that Greece’s formal responsibility for the applicant was “interrupted” by the applicant leaving the EU for a short term is contrary to Art 16(3) Dublin Regulation and must be dealt with by initiating procedures for a preliminary ruling at the CJEU. A preliminary ruling should also address the systemic failure of the asylum system in Greece, the risk of a violation of Art 3 ECHR and whether this results in a different Member State being responsible for the asylum procedure.

The decision to expel an orphaned minor to Poland when he had a legal guardian in Austria gave rise to a real risk of a violation of Art 8 ECHR. The Asylum Court made its decision without providing clear reasons. The applicant’s family ties in the home country and in Austria must be considered, regardless of the duration of the applicant’s stay in Austria. The sovereignty clause must be applied when there is a real risk of a violation of Art 8 ECHR.

This case concerns the impact of withdrawing for an asylum application has on the application of the Dublin II Regulation and what are State responsibilities in that regard.

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.

This was an appeal against the decision to transfer the applicant to Hungary despite the applicant’s claim that he had first applied for asylum in Greece. The fact that there were no fingerprints on EURODAC did not prove the applicant had never been to Greece and according to Article 16(3) Dublin regulation Greece’s responsibility for the application would only expire if the applicant left the European Union for more than 3 months. However, since a deportation to Greece would violate Art 3 ECHR, the applicant should be admitted to the asylum procedure in Austria.

This was an appeal against the decision that Poland was responsible for the asylum application of a three-month-old boy with a serious medical condition. The Austrian Federal Asylum Office did not consider the applicant’s medical condition appropriately and therefore risked violating Art 3 ECHR.

The Asylum Court allowed an appeal against the decision to transfer the applicants, a family with both physical and psychological medical conditions, to Italy. Given the applicants’ exceptional circumstances and the problems Italy has with capacity, the lack of reliable assurances from the Italian authorities in relation to medical treatment and accommodation gave rise to a risk of a violation of Art 3 ECHR.