You are here
Home › Responsibility for examining application ›EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Procedural guarantees, Responsibility for examining application
An intervention by the French urgent applications judge [juge des référés] on the grounds of urgency is not considered until a decision on a transfer of an asylum applicant under the Dublin Regulation has been made. In this case, the asylum applicant was not yet subject to a transfer decision and there was therefore no particular need for an urgent intervention within the 48-hour period, as provided by article L.521-2 of the French Code on Administrative Justice.
Date: 26-06-2009
Country of Decision: Czech Republic
Country of Applicant: Belarus
Keywords: Responsibility for examining application
The case concerned the inadmissibility of an application for international protection considering the Dublin II criteria and the validity of a visa.
Date: 29-04-2009
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: Inadmissible application, Dublin Transfer, Request that charge be taken, Responsibility for examining application, Obligation to give reasons, Procedural guarantees, Family unity (right to)
The fact that Poland agreed to take charge of the asylum procedure of a whole family is, by itself, not a proper basis for an inadmissibility decision. The hierarchy of the criteria for determining the Member State responsible for the procedure on the merits, set out in Art 5(1) Dublin II Regulation, must be respected. In this case the husband and father of the family had already been admitted to the procedure on the merits and, therefore, Art 8 was applicable prior to Art 14.
Date: 27-04-2009
Country of Applicant: Ukraine
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Effective remedy (right to), Responsibility for examining application
This case concerned the interpretation of Article 20(1)(d) and Article 20(2) of the Dublin Regulation and the analysis of time limits under these provisions when the Member State provides for suspensive effect of an appeal. The time limit for the period of implementation of the transfer begins to run, not as from the time of the provisional judicial decision suspending transfer but from the time of the judicial decision which rules on the merits of the procedure and which is no longer such as to prevent its implementation.
Date: 29-01-2009
Country of Applicant: Iran
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Effective remedy (right to), Non-refoulement, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application, Safe third country
The applicant challenged his transfer to Greece from the UK under the Dublin II Regulation, on the basis that the situation for asylum seekers in Greece would lead to a violation of Article 3 ECHR. The Court declared the application manifestly ill-founded and therefore inadmissible, as it was presumed that Greece would comply with its obligations and would not refoule him to his county of origin Iraq.
Date: 02-12-2008
Country of Decision: Sweden
Country of Applicant: Iraq
Keywords: First country of asylum, Non-refoulement, Responsibility for examining application
The conditions for asylum seekers in Greece were at the time of the decision not of such a character that it would prevent transferring asylum seekers according to the Dublin Regulation.
Date: 28-10-2008
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Kosovo
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Responsibility for examining application, Visa
If a Member Sate has issued a visa that enables an applicant to enter its territory and that visa has expired less than six months previously, that Member State is responsible for the examination of the applicant’s asylum application as long as the applicant has not left the territory of the EU Member States. In this case, the visa issued by Slovenian authorities expired only 5 days before the asylum application was made in France. Slovenia was, therefore, the responsible Member State under Art 9(4) Dublin Regulation.
Date: 28-05-2008
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Unknown
Keywords: Burden of proof, Dublin Transfer, Responsibility for examining application, Procedural guarantees
The interview report established by an officer of a Prefecture is admissible evidence even if it has not been signed and was conducted without the assistance of an interpreter. When an asylum applicant denies having made statements recorded in that report, he must provide evidence. In this case, the applicant did not provide evidence that he had not crossed Italy and, in a written letter addressed to the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons, he even mentioned having crossed Italy.
Date: 03-04-2008
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Iran
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Family member, Family unity (right to), Humanitarian considerations, Responsibility for examining application
The presence of an adult asylum applicant’s sibling in an EU Member State entails no obligation for that State to apply Art 7 Dublin Regulation, as siblings are not included in the definition of family members in Art 2(i). This was the case even though the applicant’s brother had been granted refugee status and, subsequently, citizenship in France.
Date: 02-03-2007
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Mongolia
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Family member, Family unity (right to), Responsibility for examining application
Although the applicant, an adult without children, did not fall within the definition of a family member under Art 2(i) Dublin Regulation and could therefore not rely on Art 7 and Art 8 to defeat a transfer order, his links to family members in France could justify applying Art 3(2) or Art 15. In such a case, the definition of a family member should not be interpreted in the restrictive sense of Art 2(i). In order to apply a broader definition, the applicant must provide evidence of the intensity of the links to the family. In this case, the applicant failed to provide such evidence.
Date: 03-06-2005
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Responsibility for examining application filterResponsibility for examining application
- Dublin Transfer 82
- Request to take back 31
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 20
- Reception conditions 20
- Request that charge be taken 20
- Procedural guarantees 19
- Family unity (right to) 17
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 16
- Effective remedy (right to) 15
- Effective access to procedures 13
- Detention 12
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 11
- Humanitarian considerations 11
- Material reception conditions 11
- Non-refoulement 11
- Inadmissible application 10
- Family member 9
- Return 9
- Subsequent application 9
- Best interest of the child 8
- Delay 8
- Child Specific Considerations 7
- Vulnerable person 7
- Unaccompanied minor 6
- Burden of proof 5
- First country of asylum 5
- Individual assessment 5
- Obligation to give reasons 5
- Personal circumstances of applicant 5
- Refugee Status 5
- Safe third country 5
- Dependant (Dependent person) 4
- Real risk 4
- Residence document 4
- Visa 4
- Accelerated procedure 3
- Country of origin information 3
- Family reunification 3
- Indirect refoulement 3
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 3
- Subsidiary Protection 3
- Duty of applicant 2
- Health (right to) 2
- Integration measures 2
- Relevant Documentation 2
- Relevant Facts 2
- Well-founded fear 2
- Withdrawal of protection application 2
- Access to the labour market 1
- Accommodation centre 1
- Benefit of doubt 1
- Country of origin 1
- Crime against humanity 1
- Final decision 1
- Indiscriminate violence 1
- Individual threat 1
- Internal armed conflict 1
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 1
- Nationality 1
- Personal interview 1
- Protection 1
- Serious harm 1
- Torture 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 17
- Russia (Chechnya) 9
- Eritrea 8
- Iran 8
- Syria 7
- Unknown 7
- Iraq 6
- Pakistan 6
- Russia 4
- Kosovo 3
- Armenia 2
- Congo (DRC) 2
- Guinea 2
- India 2
- Nigeria 2
- Algeria 1
- Belarus 1
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
- Bulgaria 1
- Georgia 1
- Kuwait 1
- Libya 1
- Mali 1
- Mongolia 1
- Morocco 1
- Niger 1
- Somalia 1
- Sudan 1
- Tunisia 1
- Ukraine 1
Filter by country of decision
- France 23
- Austria 18
- Germany 14
- United Kingdom 7
- Netherlands 4
- Slovenia 4
- Sweden 4
- Switzerland 3
- Belgium 2
- Finland 2
- Italy 2
- Cyprus 1
- Czech Republic 1
- Ireland 1
- Spain 1
