Latest News


CJEU: Request for preliminary ruling from the German Federal Administrative Court

Date: 
Tuesday, June 27, 2017

On 27 June 2017, the German Federal Administrative Court referred the following questions to the CJEU:
 
1.

UK Court of Appeal corrects Country Guidance Case regarding importance of Iraqi Civil Status Identity Document

Date: 
Tuesday, July 11, 2017

On 11 July 2017, the UK Court of Appeal ruled on case AA (Iraq) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, in which both the appellant and the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) agreed there was an error in a Country Guidance Case regarding Iraq, most specifically relating to the importance of the Iraqi Civil Status Identity Document (CSID). In the challenged decision, the Upper Tribunal had considered the CSID a simple travel document.

Germany: Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg confirms refugee status to a Palestinian national likely to be subject to compulsory military service in Syria

Date: 
Wednesday, June 28, 2017

On 28 June 2017, the Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg rejected an appeal by the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees and confirmed the decision to grant refugee status to a Palestinian national who had been granted refugee status under the mandate of UNRWA in Syria.

Latest Cases


Country of Applicant: Eritrea , Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to) , Date of Decision: 26-07-2017

Article 27(1) of the Dublin Regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that an applicant for international protection may rely, in the context of an action brought against a decision to transfer him, on the expiry of a period laid down in Article 21(1) of that regulation, even if the requested Member State is willing to take charge of that applicant.

The two-month period for submitting a take charge request where there has been a Eurodac hit is not cumulative with the general three-month period for take charge requests.

An application for international protection is deemed to have been lodged if a written document, prepared by a public authority and certifying that a third-country national has requested international protection, has reached the authority responsible for implementing the obligations arising from that regulation, and as the case may be, if only the main information contained in such a document, but not that document or a copy thereof, has reached that authority.

Country of Applicant: Syria , Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Request that charge be taken , Date of Decision: 26-07-2017

Article 27 of the Dublin Regulation III allows for an applicant to appeal the incorrect allocation of responsibility for a claim.  

The lodging of an appeal against a transfer decision has no effect on the running of the period laid down in Article 13(1). In an appeal against a Dublin transfer which has suspensive effect the period listed in Articles 29(1) and (2) of the DR III does not start running until the final decision on that appeal.

A third-country national whose entry was tolerated by the authorities of one Member State faced with the arrival of an unusually large number of third-country nationals seeking transit through that Member State in order to lodge an application for international protection in another Member State, without fulfilling the entry conditions generally imposed in the first Member State, must be regarded as having ‘irregularly crossed’ the border of the first Member State within the meaning of that provision. Article 13(1) of the Dublin Regulation III therefore applies and Croatia is deemed to be responsible for the protection claims. 

Country of Applicant: Afghanistan , Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Request that charge be taken , Date of Decision: 26-07-2017

A third-country national whose entry was tolerated by the authorities of one Member State faced with the arrival of an unusually large number of third-country nationals seeking transit through that Member State in order to lodge an application for international protection in another Member State, without fulfilling the entry conditions generally imposed in the first Member State, must be regarded as having ‘irregularly crossed’ the border of the first Member State within the meaning of that provision. Article 13(1) of the Dublin Regulation III therefore applies and Croatia is deemed to be responsible for the protection claims. 

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 20 European 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 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 (ataylor@ecre.org) or Julia Zelvenska (jzelvenska@ecre.org).