Case summaries

In view of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Swiss authorities should obtain formal and detailed guarantees on care and accommodation from the Italian authorities before transferring families and vulnerable persons to Italy under the Dublin III Regulation.

This is because Decree-law 113/218 on Public safety and Immigration in Italy has deeply reformed the Italian refugee reception system.

The Foreigners and Borders Service (SEF) appealed against the judgment of the Administrative Court of Sintra, which had upheld the application for annulment of the order of the National Director of SEF - holding that the application for asylum made by the defendant was inadmissible and held that Italy was the State responsible for taking back the applicant - and had ordered SEF to admit, process and assess the applicant's claim, with a final decision.

The Central Administrative Court of the South dismissed the appeal, confirming the contested decision on the ground of a real and proven risk of the applicant suffering cruel, degrading or inhuman treatment.

The State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) must carry out an individualised examination to determine whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the asylum procedure of the Member State where the applicant shall be transferred to has systemic weaknesses that would entail a risk of inhuman treatment or chain deportation.

Neither Austrian law nor the provisions of the Dublin III Regulation provide for legal remedies against a Member State’s rejection of a request for admission. The Dublin Regulation provides for a remonstration procedure between the Member States concerned in the event of a rejection, whereby after expiry of the remonstration period the requesting Member State is finally responsible for examining the application for international protection. A later agreement after the remonstration period has expired cannot establish any responsibility.

The notification about the intention of withdrawal from the EU by the Member-State responsible for the examination of the application for international protection does not trigger the determining Member-State’s obligation to make use of the discretionary clause of Article 17(1) 604/2013 EU. Similarly, Article 6 (1) cannot be interpreted as imposing an obligation on the Member State that is not responsible to take into account the best interests of the child and to examine the application itself under 17 (1)

The Council of State decided on the date from which the 6-month time limit provided by Article 29§1 of the Dublin regulation 604/2013 begins running or when it starts running again in case of an interruption. At the expiry of this deadline, the responsibility of the examination of an asylum claim falls back to the Member State which requested another Member State that charge be taken or to take back, as it did not proceed to the applicant’s transfer.  The Council specified that this deadline starts running once the other Member State has accepted the request that charge be taken or to take back. In case of an appeal, the delay is interrupted and begins running again at the date of the final judgment deciding on this appeal. Following appeals do not interrupt this newly-established delay.

The authorities followed an incorrect interpretation of the Dublin Regulation 604/2013 failing to take into account that the older applicant is the brother of the minor and should remain in Hungary under Article 10 of the Regulation, despite having lodged an application in Bulgaria.

The Federal Administrative Court changed its jurisprudence concerning those competence provisions of the Dublin-III-Regulation that can be challenged with a complaint against a decision not to take charge. The Court follows the approach taken by the CJEU in Ghezelbash (C-63/15) and Mengesteab (C-670/16) and allows complaints based on missing the term to request another Member State to take charge (Article 21(1) Dublin-III-Regulation). If successful, the Member State responsible for requesting to take charge will, itself, be in charge to deal with the asylum application.

The Court also held that notifications by the Swiss Ministry for Migration (SEM) stating that the Dublin-procedure has been terminated are considered to be interim acts that can be reviewed until the closing of the complete procedure, if the acting authority provides objective grounds and acts in respect of the principle of good faith.

Family unity and the best interests of the child are high priorities when applying the Dublin III Regulation.  A child who has applied for international protection in Germany but has members of his family in Greece is entitled to family unity with them in Germany. The Dublin III Regulation specifies that this transfer should be carried out within six months of a Member State’s acceptance of the take charge or take back request. The time period to transfer starts from the Member State’s acceptance of the request. The right of the asylum seeker to be transferred within said time-limit is a subjective right. Whilst Germany had accepted the take charge request they had only planned to transfer the applicants at a time after the six month deadline. An interim injunction was therefore necessary in order to ensure that the rights of the applicant were respected. 

Article 27 of the Dublin Regulation III allows for an applicant to appeal the incorrect allocation of responsibility for a claim.  

The lodging of an appeal against a transfer decision has no effect on the running of the period laid down in Article 13(1). In an appeal against a Dublin transfer which has suspensive effect the period listed in Articles 29(1) and (2) of the DR III does not start running until the final decision on that appeal.

A third-country national whose entry was tolerated by the authorities of one Member State faced with the arrival of an unusually large number of third-country nationals seeking transit through that Member State in order to lodge an application for international protection in another Member State, without fulfilling the entry conditions generally imposed in the first Member State, must be regarded as having ‘irregularly crossed’ the border of the first Member State within the meaning of that provision. Article 13(1) of the Dublin Regulation III therefore applies and Croatia is deemed to be responsible for the protection claims.