Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
CJEU - C-647/16 A.H v Préfet du Pas-de Calais, 31 May 2018

Article 26(1) of the Dublin III Regulation precludes the issuance of a transfer decision by the determining Member-State until the requested Member-State implicitly or explicitly accepts the take charge/back request.

 

Date of decision: 31-05-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: Recital (4),Recital (5),Recital (9),Recital (19),Article 3,Article 5,Article 8,Article 19,Article 21,Article 22,Article 24,Article 25,Article 26,Article 27,Article 28,Article 29,Article 2,Article 7,Article 8,Article 9,Article 26
CJEU - C-647/16 A.H v Préfet du Pas-de Calais, 31 May 2018

Article 26(1) of the Dublin III Regulation precludes the issuance of a transfer decision by the determining Member-State until the requested Member-State implicitly or explicitly accepts the take charge/back request.

 

Date of decision: 31-05-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: Recital (4),Recital (5),Recital (9),Recital (19),Article 3,Article 5,Article 8,Article 19,Article 21,Article 22,Article 24,Article 25,Article 26,Article 27,Article 28,Article 29,Article 2,Article 7,Article 8,Article 9,Article 26
CJEU - C‑670/16, Tsegezab Mengesteab v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Country of applicant: Eritrea

Article 27(1) of the Dublin Regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that an applicant for international protection may rely, in the context of an action brought against a decision to transfer him, on the expiry of a period laid down in Article 21(1) of that regulation, even if the requested Member State is willing to take charge of that applicant.

The two-month period for submitting a take charge request where there has been a Eurodac hit is not cumulative with the general three-month period for take charge requests.

An application for international protection is deemed to have been lodged if a written document, prepared by a public authority and certifying that a third-country national has requested international protection, has reached the authority responsible for implementing the obligations arising from that regulation, and as the case may be, if only the main information contained in such a document, but not that document or a copy thereof, has reached that authority.

Date of decision: 26-07-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Article 6,Article 31,EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,Article 4,EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation),Recital (4),Recital (5),Recital (9),Recital (19),Article 3,Article 4,Article 6,Article 13,Article 17,Article 18,Article 20,Article 21,Article 22,Article 27,Article 28,EN - Recast Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2013/33/EU of 26 June 2013,Article 6,Article 14,Article 17
CJEU - C-578/16 PPU, C.K. and others
Country of applicant: Egypt, Syria

Even where there are no substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the Member State responsible, a Dublin transfer can only be carried out in conditions which exclude the possibility that that transfer might result in a real and proven risk of the person concerned suffering inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 CFR EU.

If there is a real and proven risk that the state of health of an applicant who suffers from a serious mental or physical illness would significantly and permanently deteriorate, that transfer would constitute a violation of Article 4 CFR EU.

It is for the courts and authorities of the requesting Member State to eliminate any serious doubts concerning the impact of the transfer on the health of the person concerned by taking all necessary precaution. If the taking of precautions is not sufficient, it is for the authorities of the Member State concerned to suspend the execution of the transfer for as long as the applicant’s conditions render him unfit for transfer.

Member States may choose to conduct its own examination of that person’s application by making use of the “discretionary clause” laid down in Article 17(1) DRIII, but is not required to do so.

Date of decision: 16-02-2017
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 33,Article 1,Article 4,Article 19,Article 51,Article 52,Article 17,Article 18,Article 19,Article 3,Recital (4),Recital (5),Recital (9),Recital (32),Recital (34),Article 3,Article 12,Article 17,Article 27,Article 29,Article 31,Article 32,Article 267 § 2,Article 267 § 1 (b),Article 78