Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Reset
Switzerland - Federal Administrative Court, 10 March 2016, D-5785/2015
Country of applicant: Eritrea
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Burden of proof, Credibility assessment, Detention, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Unaccompanied minor, Inadmissible application, Child Specific Considerations, Dublin Transfer

The appeal procedure dealt with the question of whether the complainant is to be classified as a minor according to Article 2 lit. g of the Dublin III Regulation, with the consequence that Article 8 para. 1 of the Dublin III Regulation is applicable and the complainant can therefore remain with her sister in Switzerland. In particular the term “legally present” and the procedure of taking evidence were discussed in depth.

Date of decision: 10-03-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation),Article 2,Article 6,Article 7,Article 8,Article 10,Article 13,Article 16,Article 17,Article 22,Article 34
Germany - Administrative Court (of) Hannover, case no. 1 B 5946/15, 7 March 2016
Country of applicant: Russia
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Humanitarian considerations, Individual assessment, Personal circumstances of applicant, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Subsequent application, Inadmissible application, Family unity (right to), Dublin Transfer, Family member, Family reunification

A member state may derogate from Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 (the “Dublin-III-Regulation“), by examining an application for international protection despite the fact that the members state is not responsible for the examination according to the criteria laid down in the Dublin-III-Regulation.

When assessing Article 17 (1) of the Dublin-III-Regulation (the discretionary clause), the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (the “Federal Office”) must give priority to the best interest of the child and the right to respect of family life. Furthermore, the Federal Office must take due account of the possibility of family reunification in accordance with Article 6 (3) (a) of the Dublin-III-Regulation.

In the event that an application for international protection allows for family reunification and also safeguards the best interests of the child, there is no room for discretion by the Federal Office in making an assessment under Article 17 (1) of the Dublin-III-Regulation.

Although Article 17 (1) Dublin-III-Regulation determines the responsibility of the Member States to examine applications for international protection, it governs not only the relationship between the Member States but also serves to protect fundamental rights. Thus, it also aims at the protection of the individual and provides for a subjective right, which can be enforced in a court of law. 

Date of decision: 07-03-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation),Article 2,Article 3,Article 6,Article 7,Article 8,Article 10,Article 17,Article 18,Article 20
United Kingdom - The Queen on the application of ZAT, IAJ, KAM, AAM, MAT, MAJ and LAM v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
Country of applicant: Syria
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Unaccompanied minor, Family unity (right to), Reception conditions, Responsibility for examining application, Request that charge be taken, Family member, Family reunification, Material reception conditions, Vulnerable person

The Upper Tribunal ordered the Secretary of State for the Home Department to immediately admit four vulnerable Syrians from an unofficial migrant camp in France to the United Kingdom in order to be reunited with refugee family members during the examination their asylum applications. Although they had not applied for asylum in France or been subject to Dublin procedures, the particular circumstances meant that failing to do so would lead to a disproportionate interference with their right to respect for family life. 

Date of decision: 29-01-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,European Union Law,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 4,Article 7,EN - Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3,Article 8,EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation),Article 6,Article 8,Article 10,Article 18,Article 20,Article 21,Article 22,Article 27,Article 29,EN - Recast Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2013/33/EU of 26 June 2013,UN Convention on the Rights of the Child