Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Reset
UK - R (on the application of AA (Sudan)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, 9 March 2017
Country of applicant: Sudan
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Detention, Procedural guarantees, Unaccompanied minor, Reception conditions, Dublin Transfer

It was unlawful to detain an unaccompanied asylum seeking child, even in the reasonable belief that he was an adult.

Date of decision: 09-03-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,Art 18,European Union Law,Recital 14,EN - Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003,Article 19,EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,Article 6,Article 10,Article 16,Article 17,Article 18,Article 19,Article 20
Austria – Supreme Administrative Court, 31 March 2016, Ra 2015/20/0231
Country of applicant: Iran
Keywords: Effective remedy (right to), Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Inadmissible application, Responsibility for examining application, Dublin Transfer, Request to take back

The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) submitted the following two questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling according to Article 267 TFEU:

Are the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person 1 that confer the right to an effective remedy against a transfer decision, in particular Article 27(1), to be interpreted as meaning that an applicant for asylum is entitled to claim that responsibility has been transferred to the requesting Member State on the ground that the six month transfer period has expired (Article 29(2) in conjunction with Article 29(1) of Regulation No 604/2013 in light of the 19th recital)?
 
If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
 
Does the transfer of responsibility under the first sentence of Article 29(2) of Regulation No 604/2013 occur by the fact of the expiry of the transfer period without any order or, for responsibility to be transferred because the period has expired, is it also necessary that the obligation to take charge of, or to take back, the person concerned has been refused by the responsible Member State?
Date of decision: 31-03-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 4,EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,Article 10,Article 17,EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation),Recital (19),Article 13,Article 17,Article 18,Article 22,Article 25,Article 27,Article 29,Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01,Article 267 § 2,Article 267 § 1 (b)
Germany - Federal Administrative Court, 1 C 10.15, 22 March 2016
Country of applicant: Iran
Keywords: Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Subsequent application, Subsidiary Protection, Inadmissible application, Responsibility for examining application, Request that charge be taken, Dublin Transfer

When a Member State accepts a request by Germany to take charge of an applicant in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 (the “Dublin II Regulation”), the applicant may be transferred to that Member State even if he/she limits his/her application to subsidiary protection after the request to take charge has been accepted.

Date of decision: 22-03-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,Art 19,European Union Law,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 4,EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,Article 2,Article 3,Article 4,Article 5,Article 9,Article 16,Article 17,Article 18,Article 19,Article 20,EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation),Article 49,Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01
Germany – Federal Administrative Court, 16 November 2015, 1 C 4.15
Country of applicant: Iraq
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Subsequent application, Unaccompanied minor, Dublin Transfer, Request to take back

The provisions on responsibility for unaccompanied minors in Article 6 of the Dublin II Regulation are protective of the individual, as they not only govern relationships between Member States but (also) serve to protect fundamental rights.

Where there has been an unlawful rejection of an asylum application as inadmissible on grounds that another Member State is responsible under Section 27a of the German Asylum Act, this cannot be reinterpreted as a (negative) decision on a subsequent application under Section 71a of the Asylum Act, because of the different adverse legal consequences attached.

Date of decision: 16-11-2015
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,Art 25,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 24,Article 51,EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,Article 2,Article 3,Article 5,Article 6,Article 10,Article 13,Article 15,Article 16,Article 17,Article 18,Article 19,Article 20,EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation),Article 49
Germany – Federal Administrative Court, 27 October 2015, 1 C 32.14; 1 C 33.14; 1 C 34.14
Country of applicant: Pakistan
Keywords: Effective remedy (right to), Request that charge be taken, Dublin Transfer, Request to take back

Asylum seekers cannot refer to a delayed take charge request by one Member State to another, in particular when the requested Member State has accepted the request. Article 17 (1) of Regulation No. 343/2003 (Dublin II) does not guarantee individual protection for asylum applicants against a transfer to another Member State. 

Date of decision: 27-10-2015
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 41,Art 41.1,EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,Article 2,(e),Article 4,Article 16,1.,Article 17,Article 20,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 6,Art 6.1
ECtHR - Mohammadi v Austria, Application No. 71932/12
Country of applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Detention, Indirect refoulement, Safe country of origin, Dublin Transfer, Return

The Dublin transfer of the applicant to Hungary will not violate Article 3 of the Convention. 

Date of decision: 03-07-2014
Relevant International and European Legislation: 2.,Article 5,Article 6,Article 7,Article 8,Article 9,Article 10,Article 11,Article 12,Article 13,Article 14,Article 17,Article 18,Article 19,Article 3
CJEU - C-394/12, Shamso Abdullahi v Bundesasylamt
Country of applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Dublin Transfer

This ruling concerned the scope of judicial review when reviewing compliance with the criterion of Article 10(1) for determining responsibility for examining an asylum application under Regulation 343/2003. The Court held that Art. 19(2) of the Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances where a Member State has agreed to take charge of an applicant for asylum on the basis of the Art. 10(1) criterion the only way in which the applicant for asylum can call into question the choice of that criterion is by pleading systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the conditions for the reception of applicants for asylum in that Member State, which provide substantial grounds for believing that the applicant for asylum would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Art. 4 of the Charter.

Date of decision: 10-12-2013
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Article 18,Article 47,Recital 29,Recital (3),Recital (4),1.,Article 10,Article 13,Article 16,Article 17,Article 18,Article 19,Article 27,Article 37
Austria - Administrative Court (VwGH), 19 March 2013, 2011/21/0128
Country of applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Detention, Subsequent application, Responsibility for examining application, Dublin Transfer, Request to take back

Foreigners who have lodged an application for international protection cannot be taken into detention pending deportation as a person remaining in the country unlawfully.

If a more recent application for international protection has been lodged in the transfer country, then the Applicant will again be assigned the status of an asylum seeker in accordance with the Dublin II Regulation. The (re-)receiving country must undertake an examination of the application for asylum made in another Member State, even if it is a “subsequent application”.

Date of decision: 19-03-2013
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 18,Article 6,Article 2,Article 3,Article 4,Article 16,Article 17,Article 18,Article 19,Article 20
CJEU - C-620/10 Migrationsverket v Nurije Kastrati, Valdrina Kastrati, Valdrin Kastrati
Country of applicant: Kosovo
Keywords: Withdrawal of protection application, Responsibility for examining application, Dublin Transfer

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.

Date of decision: 03-05-2012
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 19,Recital 29,Recital (3),Recital (4),Article 1,Article 2,1.,Article 4,Article 5,Article 16,Article 17,Article 18,Article 19,Article 20
Finland - Supreme Administrative Court, KHO:2012:18
Country of applicant: Russia
Keywords: Effective remedy (right to), Previous persecution, Safe third country, Inadmissible application

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.

Date of decision: 07-03-2012
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 4,Art 27,Art 25,Article 2,Article 18,2.,Article 17,Article 3,Article 13