Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Reset
Germany - Federal Administrative Court, 1 C 10.15, 22 March 2016
Country of applicant: Iran

When a Member State accepts a request by Germany to take charge of an applicant in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 (the “Dublin II Regulation”), the applicant may be transferred to that Member State even if he/she limits his/her application to subsidiary protection after the request to take charge has been accepted.

Date of decision: 22-03-2016
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,Art 19,European Union Law,EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,Article 4,EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003,Article 2,Article 3,Article 4,Article 5,Article 9,Article 16,Article 17,Article 18,Article 19,Article 20,EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation),Article 49,Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2010/C 83/01
CJEU - C-620/10 Migrationsverket v Nurije Kastrati, Valdrina Kastrati, Valdrin Kastrati
Country of applicant: Kosovo

This case concerns the impact of withdrawing for an asylum application has on the application of the Dublin II Regulation and what are State responsibilities in that regard.

Date of decision: 03-05-2012
Relevant International and European Legislation: Art 19,Recital 29,Recital (3),Recital (4),Article 1,Article 2,1.,Article 4,Article 5,Article 16,Article 17,Article 18,Article 19,Article 20
Ireland - High Court, 28 October 2011, L.H. v Minister for Justice [2011] IEHC 406
Country of applicant: Georgia

The applicant applied to the Minister to be readmitted to the asylum system many years after he had made a first application for refugee status which had been refused for non-attendance at a refugee interview. There was no new claim as such nor was there any new evidence to support the application. The Court found that the Minister was only required to decide whether what was adduced was ‘new’. The Minister’s obligation was not altered by the fact that the original application had not been fully processed but had been abandoned by the applicant and deemed withdrawn. An applicant is not entitled to exploit his own failure to prosecute his original application in order to compel the Minister to consent to what is, in effect a reopening of the original claim with no new evidence, argument elements or findings. The Court also found that Art 32 of the Procedures Directive did not assist the applicant and, in any event, there was no claim of ‘direct effect’ made on his behalf.

Date of decision: 28-10-2011
Relevant International and European Legislation: EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004,1951 Refugee Convention,EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005,Art 13,Art 32,Art 33,Art 19,Art 20