Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
CJEU - C-411-10 and C-493-10, Joined cases of N.S. v United Kingdom and M.E. v Ireland
Country of applicant: Afghanistan, Iran, Nigeria

This case concerned the concept of ‘safe country’ within the Dublin system and respect for fundamental rights of asylum seekers. The Court held that EU law prevents the application of a conclusive presumption that Member States observe all the fundamental rights of the European Union. Art. 4 Charter must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may not transfer an asylum seeker to the Member State responsible within the meaning of the Regulation where they cannot be unaware that systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions of asylum seekers in that Member State amount to substantial grounds for believing that the asylum seeker would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of the provision. Once it is impossible to transfer the asylum seeker to the responsible Member State then subject to the sovereignty clause the State can check if another Member State is responsible by examining further criteria under the Regulation. This should not take an unreasonable amount of time and if necessary then the Member State concerned must examine the asylum application. 

Date of decision: 21-12-2011
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,Art 8,Art 7,Art 9,Art 18,Art 23,Art 24,Art 12,Art 17,Art 15,Art 10,Art 5,Art 4,Art 6,Art 16,Recital 10,Art 39,Art 11,Art 13,Art 14,Art 26,Art 28,Art 29,Art 31,Art 21,Art 32,Art 33,Art 19,Art 36,Art 20,Art 30,Art 25,Article 1,Article 4,Article 18,Art 19.2,Article 47,Art 20.1,Art 22,Art 33,Art 34,EN - Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003,Recital (5),Recital (15),Article 13,Article 17,Article 18,Article 19,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
France – Council of State, 11 January 2010, Mr. & Mme. A. v Prefect of Pyrénées-Orientales, No 335277
Country of applicant: Russia (Chechnya)

Art 3 and Art 15 Dublin Regulation are only applicable if there exist compelling reasons to believe the receiving country is incapable of welcoming asylum applicants in appropriate conditions or if the applicants can prove that they personally risk being subjected to ill treatment or not benefitting fully from an effective right to asylum. In this case, the applicants had not demonstrated they were personally victims of ill treatment in Poland. Poland was considered to offer sufficient guarantees against deportation and for an effective and impartial asylum procedure.

Date of decision: 11-01-2010
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 33,2.,Article 15,Article 17,Article 20,Article 3
France – Council of State, 2 March 2007, Minister for the Interior v Mr. A., No 302034
Country of applicant: Iran

The presence of an adult asylum applicant’s sibling in an EU Member State entails no obligation for that State to apply Art 7 Dublin Regulation, as siblings are not included in the definition of family members in Art 2(i). This was the case even though the applicant’s brother had been granted refugee status and, subsequently, citizenship in France.

Date of decision: 02-03-2007
Relevant International and European Legislation: (i),1.,2.,4.,Article 7,Article 15,Article 17,Article 18,Article 19