Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
France - Administrative Tribunal of Nantes, 23 March 2020, n° 2001918
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

Given the emergency of the situation, family reunification could only be refused in circumstances where the relevant individual does not comply with principles of public order.

As a result, the Court concluded that there were serious doubts as to the legality of the decisions refusing family reunification.

Date of decision: 23-03-2020
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 4,Article 6,Article 8,Article 37,UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
Austria: Supreme Administrative Court (VwGH), 26. March 2019, Ro 2018/19/0005
Country of applicant: Afghanistan

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.

Date of decision: 26-03-2019
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 7,Article 47,EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,Article 8,Article 3,Article 7,Article 10,Article 13,Article 18,Article 21,Article 22,Article 26,Article 27,Article 36,Article 37
CJEU - C‑63/15, Mehrdad Ghezelbash v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
Country of applicant: Iran

Dublin III is characterised by the introduction or re-fortification of rights and mechanisms which guarantee the involvement of the asylum seeker in the determination process. Article 27(1) when read in conjunction with Recital 19 is ,therefore, to be interpreted as allowing an asylum seeker to appeal a transfer decision on grounds that the Chapter III allocation criteria were incorrectly applied.

Date of decision: 07-06-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: European Union Law,EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,Article 19,EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation),Article 1,Article 3,Article 4,Article 5,Article 7,Article 9,Article 12,Article 19,Article 21,Article 22,Article 26,Article 27,Article 29,Article 36,Article 37,Article 40
CJEU - C-394/12, Shamso Abdullahi v Bundesasylamt
Country of applicant: Somalia

This ruling concerned the scope of judicial review when reviewing compliance with the criterion of Article 10(1) for determining responsibility for examining an asylum application under Regulation 343/2003. The Court held that Art. 19(2) of the Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances where a Member State has agreed to take charge of an applicant for asylum on the basis of the Art. 10(1) criterion the only way in which the applicant for asylum can call into question the choice of that criterion is by pleading systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the conditions for the reception of applicants for asylum in that Member State, which provide substantial grounds for believing that the applicant for asylum would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Art. 4 of the Charter.

Date of decision: 10-12-2013
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,Article 18,Article 47,Recital 29,Recital (3),Recital (4),1.,Article 10,Article 13,Article 16,Article 17,Article 18,Article 19,Article 27,Article 37