Case summaries

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 Slovenian legislature has not fulfilled its obligations under the provisions of Article 2(n) of the Dublin Regulation. The possibility of an analogous application of Article 68 of the Aliens Act-2 has a very weak basis in terms of the objective criteria required. It can only be sufficient in a particular case if in light of the specific circumstances of the case there is no doubt about the existence of the risk of absconding.

The applicant’s asylum application was rejected in Croatia and he received an order to leave the country in 30 days. The Slovenian Asylum authority detained the applicant due to the risk of absconding, because he left Croatia before receiving a decision in his asylum procedure. The Court ruled that the applicant’s departure from Croatia was incorrectly assessed as arbitrary absconding (the applicant actually respected the order to leave the country) and therefore the applicant does not present a risk of absconding. The Court also held that the measure was not necessary, that the Asylum authority incorrectly referred to its discretionary powers in this matter and that the objective criteria to determine when someone presents the risk of absconding (from Article 68 of Aliens Act-2) have not been applied.

The Constitutional Court rules that the doubts of the Federal Administrative Court about the legality of Section 9a(4) and Section 21(9) FPG-DVO as amended by BGBl. II 143/2015, which defines the term “risk of absconding” in the context of detention pending deportation pursuant to Section 76 FPG, are unfounded. The Court finds that Section 9a(4) FPG-DVO was adopted on a sufficient legal basis. 

The Federal Administrative Court rules, that the significant risk of absconding for ‘Dublin-detention’ orders must always be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The sole existence of a ground for detention as set out in Art. 76a(2) AuG does not automatically indicate a significant risk absconding. Such an order is unlawful and must be rescinded. The Court ‘warns’ the SEM that the current practices are very concerning and require adaptation.

The judgment examined whether returns of asylum seekers to Bulgaria would be contrary to their Article 3 rights. The court held that the Bulgarian system has significantly improved since the UNHCR report in 2014 which prohibited returns of asylum seekers. As a result the returns would not be in breach of Article 3. 

The Supreme Administrative Court attempted to answer the question whether the objective criteria for identification of the “existing risk of absconding” in order to apply Article 28(2) of Dublin III Regulation have to be set out in an act of parliament, or whether the wider interpretation of the phrase “defined in law” contained in Article 2(n) of Dublin III Regulation should be adopted. The court decided to refer a preliminary question to the CJEU.  

The criteria for detention under Article 28(2) of Dublin III Regulation must be assessed against the length and conditions of detention and must be precisely evaluated with regard to the impact on a child. Failure to do so renders the decision to detain unlawful. 

The Czech Regional Court dealt with an application concerning the unlawfulness of a decision taken under § 129 (1) of the Aliens Act. After engaging in textual and teleological analysis of the said national provision, the Court concluded that because the Member State failed to establish objective criteria for assessing the risk of absconding, the rule laid down in Article 28 of the Dublin III Regulation is not applicable in the Czech Republic.  

Detention pending Dublin transfer can only be ordered on the basis of Article 28 Dublin-III-Regulation, which contains autonomous provisions on the detention of foreigner. Additional criteria laid down by national laws are required in order to specify the condition of "risk of absconding". A deportation detention order that does not even refer to Art. 28 Dublin-III-Regulation is unlawful.