Case summaries

The following question is referred to the CJEU under the expedited procedure provided for in Article 105 of the Rules of Procedure:

Does Article 26 of the Dublin Regulation III prevent the competent authorities in a Member State, who have requested another Member State to take responsibility under a take back or take charge request of an applicant who has applied for international protection (which has not yet been ruled definitely upon) or any other person caught by Article 18(1)(c) or (d), from taking a transfer decision and notifying the applicant before the requested State has accepted the take back or take charge request?

The Court of Appeal concluded that to send a refugee who has a residence permit in Italy and an asylum seeker back to the country would not violate Article 3 ECHR.

The court further constrained the decision in Tarakhel to families with minor children. 

The ECtHR ruled that the Greek authorities had failed in their positive obligation under Article 8 ECHR to guarantee that the applicant’s asylum request is examined within a reasonable time in order to ensure that his situation of insecurity, which impinges upon several elements of his private life, is as short-lived as possible. 

A Dublin Transfer to Italy should be prevented when the person concerned is a vulnerable person as per in Article 3 (2) Dublin III Regulation.

The Court quashed the decision of the Office of Immigration and Nationality (OIN) because it failed to carry out a proper establishment of facts as required by the Dublin III Regulation.

The applicant appeals the ruling of the Directorate-General for Domestic Policy, made on 16th February 2015, which denies leave to proceed (inadmissible) for international protection, claiming that another Member state (Poland) and not Spain is responsible for the examination of the asylum application as, on 3rd February 2015, Poland granted the applicant a visa.

The Member State before which the request for international protection is presented has the power to authorise temporary residence for the applicant, at their discretion, if the applicant is suffering from a serious illness which requires medical attention. In this case, the applicant is suffering from an illness but, according to the National Court, it is not a serious illness which requires specialised medical assistance. 

The Office of Immigration and Nationality issued a decision on the responsibility of the Republic of Bulgaria under the Dublin III Regulation, without having informed the Applicant about the applicability of the Regulation in his case. The Court quashed the decision and declared the Applicant’s right to be heard was not respected.

The case concerned an application for judicial review of the decisions made on behalf of the Secretary of State to transfer the applicants to Malta, on the basis that such jurisdiction was the proper place for considering the applicants’ asylum claims. The applicants argued that such transfer would violate their rights under Article 18 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union (EU Charter) to have their asylum application determined within a reasonable time and on the basis of a fair procedure, as the Maltese asylum system had several shortcomings and contains procedures that are illusory or too slow. Dismissing the application, the Tribunal concluded that there was no evidence to support the argument that the applicants’ Article 18 rights would be violated if they were transferred to Malta. 

The Constitutional Court ruled that Member States are obliged to examine all circumstances which are important from the perspective of the principle of non-refoulement, when deciding on a Dublin transfer to a responsible Member State. Due to the absolute nature of the protection afforded by the principle of non-refoulement, the assessment must take into account all the circumstances of the particular case, including the applicant's personal situation in the transferring country. In this context, it should also be assessed whether the mere removal of an individual to another country due to their health status is contrary to the requirements arising from the principle of non-refoulement. Thus, when the Supreme Court did not consider the circumstances that are important in terms of respect of the principle of non-refoulement, it infringed the applicants' right to equal protection under article 22 of the Constitution.

The asylum applicant cannot be transferred to Bulgaria because he would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment pursuant to Article 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.