Latest News

Finland: Supreme Administrative Court rules against Dublin III returns to Hungary due to ‘systemic flaws’ in asylum procedures and reception conditions

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

In decision KHO: 2016: 53 of 20 April 2016, the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland has ruled that there are systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and reception conditions for asylum applicants in Hungary within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the Dublin III Regulation(DRIII).

Latest Cases

Country of Decision: United Kingdom , Country of Applicant: Eritrea , Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Best interest of the child, Child Specific Considerations, Family member, Family reunification, Family unity (right to), Individual assessment , Date of Decision: 29-02-2016

A refusal to permit re-unification of family members with a child granted asylum in the United Kingdom can constitute a disproportionate breach of the right to respect for family life enjoyed by all family members under Article 8 ECHR despite the Immigration Rules not providing for family reunification where a child has been granted asylum in the UK.

Country of Decision: Germany , Country of Applicant: Mali , Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Non-refoulement, Request that charge be taken, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application, Subsequent application, Withdrawal of protection application , Date of Decision: 05-11-2015

The transfer of an applicant for asylum to Malta violates the Regulation (EU) no 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 (“Dublin III Regulation”) because Malta’s asylum procedures and system show systemic deficiencies with the inherent risk of subjecting an applicant for asylum to inhuman or degrading treatment.  

Country of Decision: Germany , Country of Applicant: Iran , Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Request that charge be taken, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application , Date of Decision: 05-08-2015

An application to establish the suspensive effect of a pending appeal pursuant to Section 80, Paragraph 5 of the German Code of Administrative Court Procedure (Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung – VwGO) is not a legal remedy under Article 20, Paragraph 1 (d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 (“Dublin II Regulation”). A German court’s dismissal of a Section 80, Paragraph 5 application does therefore not suspend the 6-month deadline under Article 20, Paragraph 2 of the Dublin II Regulation for a member state of the European Union (“Member State”) to transfer an applicant to a Member State that has accepted (actually or  implicitly) a request to take charge. 

About EDAL

The European Database of Asylum Law (EDAL) is an online database co-ordinated by the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and a compilation of summaries of refugee and asylum case law from the courts of 19 EU Member States, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The summaries are published in English and in the relevant Member State’s national language.

For more information please see here.

If you are interested in contributing an article on a relevant subject to the EDAL blog or would like to inform us about an important national judgment, please kindly send an email to Amanda Taylor ( or Julia Zelvenska (