Case summaries

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

It is the Applicant's age on the date of the asylum application rather than the date of the transfer decision that forms the basis for the assessment of whether or not the Dublin Regulation applies.

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.

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).

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”.

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.

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. 

The asylum applicant who, in the case of a supervised departure, does not appear at the boarding of his/her flight where his/her pre-transportation to the airport was not ensured, cannot be considered as having absconded.

The failure of an asylum applicant to appear with her children (systematically or repeatedly) when summoned in relation to a transfer order under the Dublin Regulation is considered as absconding and results in the extension of the transfer deadline to 18 months. In this case, the applicant never appeared with her children despite receiving several notifications and, according to the Council of State, she was aware that the presence of her children was crucial in order to proceed with her transfer.

In a decision on whether the return of an unaccompanied minor to Hungary under the Dublin Regulation is unlawful in light of Art. 3 ECHR and therefore the sovereignty clause should be used, Art. 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union(CFRU – best interest of the child as a primary consideration for authorities) is significant.