Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
CJEU, L.R. v Bundesrepublik Deutschland C-8/20

National legislation that grants the possibility of rejecting an application made by a third-country national or a stateless person for international protection, whose previous application seeking refugee status in another Member State implementing the Dublin III Regulation had been rejected, is precluded under Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32 read in conjunction with Article 2(q) thereof. 

Date of decision: 20-05-2021
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 2,Article 32,Article 3,Article 18,Article 19,Article 48,Article 1,Article 2,Article 15,Article 267 § 2,Article 267 § 1 (b)
CJEU, H. A. v Etat belge C-194/19

Article 27(1) of Dublin III Regulation read in the light of recital 19 thereof, and Article 47 of the Charter preclude national legislation that bars domestic courts from assessing an application for annulment of a Dublin transfer decision by considering circumstances that emerged after the transfer decision was adopted and which are decisive for the correct application of the regulation. However, such circumstances may not be considered if that legislation foresees a specific remedy with ex nunc review that can be exercised after the emergence of the new circumstances is not conditional on the person’s deprivation of liberty or on the imminent implementation of that decision.

Date of decision: 15-04-2021
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 47,Article 46,Recital (4),Recital (5),Recital (19),Article 2,Article 10,Article 17,Article 27,Article 267 § 2,Article 267 § 1 (b)
Germany – Higher Administrative Court Lüneburg, 18 September 2020, 10 LA 193/20
Country of applicant: Iraq

As an extraneous consideration, the Coronavirus pandemic does not justify the suspension of the implementation of Dublin transfer decisions. The de facto suspension of Dublin transfers due to the Coronavirus pandemic does not interrupt the time limit for the implementation of Dublin transfer decisions.

A change of the Member State responsible based on the expiration of the time limit for transfer does not depend on the accountability of the requesting Member State for the impossibility to carry out the transfer.

 

Date of decision: 18-09-2020
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 21,Article 25,Article 27,Article 28,Article 29
Portugal - A v. Immigration and Borders Service, No. 61/20.6BELSB, 2 July 2020

The Court concluded that Italy had already accepted the take back request and therefore Portugal should proceed with the applicant’s transfer in accordance with the Dublin Regulation III. Since Italy had already rejected the applicant’s first request for international protection there, it should be the one responsible for returning the applicant back to their home country.

As the applicant is not a vulnerable person, the transfer order to Italy does not violate the non-refoulement principle.

Date of decision: 02-07-2020
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 3,Article 3,Article 2,Article 3
Netherlands, Council of State, 27 May 2020, no. 201906353/1/V3. ECLI:NL:RVS:2020:1281

The Dutch Council of State does not consider ‘the best interest of the child’-criteriοn automatically fulfilled, in the context of a Dublin transfer, when an unaccompanied minor can be transferred to an adult family member in another MS. In turn, it considers that the authorities have to substantially and individually investigate whether the best interest of the child is respected when transferring. 

Date of decision: 27-05-2020
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 24,Recital (13),Recital (16),Article 2,Article 6,Article 8
Portugal - I. v. Immigration and Borders Service, No. 2364/18.0BELSB, 14 May 2020
Country of applicant: Sierra Leone

Since there is a high risk of exposure to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3 ECHR and Article 4 CFREU, Portugal should not allow the applicant’s transfer to Italy. The Court also found that there had been a violation of his right to a prior hearing, and that there is no obligation under EU Law of asylum seekers’ transfer once the DRIII is applied.

Date of decision: 14-05-2020
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 3,Article 2,Article 3,Article 17
ECtHR – M.N. and others v. Belgium, Application no. 3599/18, 5 May 2020
Country of applicant: Syria

Not all cases with an international element can establish jurisdiction under the Convention; an assessment of exceptional circumstances on the basis of the specific facts of each case is required.

The applicants do not have any connecting links with Belgium and their sole presence in the premises of the Belgian Embassy in Lebanon cannot establish jurisdiction, as they were never under the de facto control of Belgian diplomatic or consular agents. Jurisdiction under Article 1 ECHR cannot be established solely on the basis of an administrative procedure initiated by private individuals outside the territory of the chosen state, without them having any connection with that State, nor any treaty obligation compelling them to choose that state.

Date of decision: 05-05-2020
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 33.1,Article 18,Article 3,Art 51.1,Art 52.3,Article 1,Article 3,Article 6,Article 13,Article 3
Germany: Administrative Court Madgeburg (VG), 24. March 2020, 2 B 92/20 MD
Country of applicant: Turkey
Keywords: Dublin Transfer

Germany is responsible for the asylum determination of an oppositional Turkish applicant under Art. 3 para. 2 subparas 2 and 3 Dublin III Regulation, because in this individual case the Bulgarian asylum procedure has systemic flaws that would entail a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. A serious examination of the asylum application cannot be expected by the Bulgarian authorities and the authorities will likely return the applicant to Turkey. In such a case, there are reasonable grounds for believing that there would be a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights due to the complainant’s own or family member’s opposition activities.

Date of decision: 24-03-2020
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 4,Article 3,Article 3
France - Administrative Tribunal of Nantes, 23 March 2020, n° 2001918
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

Given the emergency of the situation, family reunification could only be refused in circumstances where the relevant individual does not comply with principles of public order.

As a result, the Court concluded that there were serious doubts as to the legality of the decisions refusing family reunification.

Date of decision: 23-03-2020
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 4,Article 6,Article 8,Article 37,UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
Germany – Administrative Court Osnabrück, Order of 20 March 2020, 5 B 88/20
Country of applicant: Nigeria

The Dublin transfers, which have been suspended indefinitely due to the so-called Corona pandemic, constitute a domestic-related obstacle to execution in the sense of an objective impossibility which leads to a temporary suspension of deportation (Duldung) in accordance with § 60a para. 2 sentence 1 AufenthG.

The suspension constitutes a subsequent change in circumstances leading to the order of suspensive effect pursuant to § 80 para. 7 VwGO.

 

Date of decision: 20-03-2020
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 3,Article 29