Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Reset
CJEU - C-661/17 M.A & others, 23 January 2019
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Responsibility for examining application, Dublin Transfer

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)

Date of decision: 23-01-2019
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 4,Article 18,Article 47,Art 52.3,Article 3,Recital (1),Recital (2),Recital (3),Recital (4),Recital (5),Recital (13),Recital (14),Recital (15),Recital (16),Recital (17),Recital (19),Recital (32),Recital (39),Recital (41),Article 1,Article 3,Article 6,Article 7,Article 8,Article 11,Article 17,Article 20,Article 27,Article 29,Article 35,Article 78
France - Administrative tribunal of Toulouse, 9 November 2018, N° 1805185
Country of applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Trafficking in human beings, Reception conditions, Responsibility for examining application, Dublin Transfer, Vulnerable person

As a result of a transfer order to Italian authorities joined with house arrest, the applicant lodged an appeal. She argued she would be at risk of being exposed to inhuman and degrading treatments, as well as to systemic lapses of the Italian asylum system. In this case, the administrative tribunal granted annulment of those orders issued by the prefect of la Haute-Garonne in the light of the current Italian asylum conditions and the reasons motivating the applicant to reach France after having stayed in Italy. 

Date of decision: 09-11-2018
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,European Union Law,International Law,Council of Europe Instruments,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 47,EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,Article 4,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3,EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation),Article 3,Article 4,Article 5,Article 17,Article 20,Article 26,Article 27,Article 35,Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01
Germany - Federal Administrative Court, 1 C 22.15, 27 April 2016
Country of applicant: Syria
Keywords: Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Subsequent application, Inadmissible application, Responsibility for examining application, Request that charge be taken, Dublin Transfer, Request to take back, Residence document

The Federal Administrative Court (the “Court”) suspended its decision and referred the case to the European Court of Justice (“CJEU”) pursuant to Art. 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”) to obtain a preliminary ruling with regards to the following question:

Do the provisions of Regulation No. 604/2013 (“Dublin-III-Regulation”) 

i)  the obligation of a Member State to (re-)file a request to take back the applicant with another Member State; and

ii) the possible transfer of the responsibility for examining an application,

apply in relation to an applicant who has been deported to the Member State where he had first entered the EU and illegally re-enters the Member State that had filed the request to take back and deported the applicant.

The 6-month period under Art. 29 (1) Dublin-III -Regulation begins after the request by another Member State to take charge or to take back the person concerned has been accepted or the fiction of such acceptance (Art. 29(1) first alternative) or of the final decision on an appeal or review where there is a suspensive effect in accordance with Article 27(3) (Art. 29(1) second alternative). In the second case, the later event determines when the time limit begins to run, unless the time limit for the transfer triggered by the acceptance of the request to take back or to take charge has already expired. In such a case, the latter event is decisive to determine when the period begins, unless the 6-month period triggered by the (deemed) acceptance had already expired. 

Date of decision: 27-04-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 4,EN - Returns Directive, Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008,Article 6,EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,Article 20,EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation),Article 3,Article 7,Article 9,Article 13,Article 18,Article 21,Article 22,Article 23,Article 24,Article 25,Article 27,Article 29,Article 35,Article 49,Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01,Article 267 § 2,Article 267 § 1 (b)