Case summaries

A Member State is responsible for the asylum application of an unaccompanied minor if the minor does not have a family member in said Member State and the minor's application has been finally rejected in another Member State, provided that the unaccompanied minor resides in the relevant Member State.

The responsibility for examining an application does not cease to apply upon the mere acceptance of a request to take charge by another Member State.

Section 62 subsection 3 first sentence No. 5 of the German Act of the Residence, Economic Activity and Integration of Foreigners in the Federal Territory (Residence Act) does not comply with the requirements in Art. 2(n) Dublin III Regulation No 604/2013 which defines ‘risk of absconding’ as the existence of reasons in an individual case, which are based on objective criteria defined by law. Section 62 subsection 3 first sentence No. 5 of the Residence Act names ‘risk of absconding’ as a reason for detention but lacks the required objective criteria to determine the existence of the ‘risk of absconding’. Therefore according to the current legal situation in Germany detention in order to ensure the transfer as per Art. 28 Dublin III Regulation No 604/2013 cannot be based on the detention reason ‘risk of absconding’.

The detention reasons named in Section 62 subsection 3 first sentence No. 2 and No. 3 of the Residence Act comply with the requirements in Art. 2(n) Dublin III Regulation No 604/2013. Detention in order to ensure the transfer as per Art. 28 Dublin III Regulation No 604/2013 can be based on these provisions.

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).

Once the Applicant states in his application for international protection that his human rights and fundamental freedoms would be violated if he was returned to the recipient country (in this case Bulgaria) in accordance with the Dublin Regulation, the Respondentmust verify whether any systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and reception conditions constitute reasonable grounds for believing that the Applicant would be exposed to a real danger of inhuman and degrading treatment in the sense of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

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”.

An asylum seeker cannot be considered to have ‘absconded’ within the meaning of the Dublin II Regulation because they failed to respond to a request to come to a police station in order to regularise their situation as an asylum seeker.

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.

A decision to transfer the applicant to Italy, solely based on Italy’s failure to respond to a request to take back the applicant, was insufficient, arbitrary and violated the applicant’s right to equal treatment. The Asylum Court had neither listed any criteria of the Dublin II Regulation that would indicate that Italy was responsible nor addressed the issues concerning the travel route of the applicant and his long stay in Greece.

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.

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.