EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Effective remedy (right to), Integration measures, Material reception conditions, Responsibility for examining application
The right to have recourse to the courts as enshrined in the German constitution (Art. 19 ss. 4 GG) is to be assessed in a thorough and reliable manner if the right to physical integrity (Art. 2 ss. 2 GG and Art. 3 of the ECHR) is at stake. The courts only adhere to this obligation if they carefully assess the evidence brought to them by the applicant considering the specific context of a person who has been granted international protection in a third country.
Date: 08-05-2017
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Eritrea
Keywords: Delay, Dublin Transfer, Effective access to procedures, Inadmissible application, Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Material reception conditions, Obligation to give reasons, Procedural guarantees, Request that charge be taken, Responsibility for examining application, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect)
Both applicants seek legal assistance and to register their application for asylum, which was previously refused by the Alpes Maritimes Prefect. The interim relief judge decided that the Prefect’s refusal to provide the individuals with an application form to register their application for asylum, notwithstanding their presence within the territory and contact with the police, amounted to a serious breach of the right to asylum.
Date: 31-03-2017
Country of Decision: Sweden
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Child Specific Considerations, Detention, Dublin Transfer, Material reception conditions, Reception conditions, Responsibility for examining application, Safe third country
The Applicants applied for asylum in Sweden, stating that they had arrived from Syria. However, investigations showed that the Applicants had entered Hungary via Serbia and applied for asylum in Hungary prior to arriving to Sweden. The Migration Court of Appeal found that the Hungarian asylum procedure and reception conditions did not contain such substantial deficiencies, that it was impossible to transfer the Applicants to Hungary in accordance with the Dublin III Regulation. However, two of the Applicants were small children, and had the Applicants been transferred to Hungary there was...
Date: 01-07-2016
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Family member, Family reunification, Family unity (right to), Material reception conditions, Reception conditions, Request that charge be taken, Responsibility for examining application, Unaccompanied minor, Vulnerable person
The Upper Tribunal ordered the Secretary of State for the Home Department to immediately admit four vulnerable Syrians from an unofficial migrant camp in France to the United Kingdom in order to be reunited with refugee family members during the examination their asylum applications. Although they had not applied for asylum in France or been subject to Dublin procedures, the particular circumstances meant that failing to do so would lead to a disproportionate interference with their right to respect for family life.
Date: 29-01-2016
Country of Decision: Switzerland
Country of Applicant: Eritrea
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Dublin Transfer, Material reception conditions, Reception conditions, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect)
It is a material prerequisite for the permissibility of a Dublin transfer of a family with children to Italy under international law to seek an individual guarantee that they will be provided with an accommodation that is appropriate for children and respects the unity of the family. This prerequisite of an individual assurance also requires it to be up to date.
A transfer decision that relies on a six months old general assurance of the Italian authorities that appropriate accommodation will be provided for, indicating the number of available places in the regions of Sicily and...
Date: 09-12-2015
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Congo (DRC)
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Material reception conditions, Reception conditions, Responsibility for examining application
The court overturned a decision to transfer the Applicant to his first country of asylum, Italy, on the grounds that the Prefect failed to demonstrate that Italy would have given the Applicant the relevant assurances as to appropriate reception conditions.
The court took into account the personal circumstances of the Applicant. The Tribunal found that the Prefect’s arguments were not adapted to the circumstances of the Applicant and were too general to demonstrate that transferring the Applicant to the Italian authorities would not have a substantial impact on the Applicant’s...
Date: 24-07-2015
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Child Specific Considerations, Dublin Transfer, Family unity (right to), Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Material reception conditions, Personal circumstances of applicant, Reception conditions, Responsibility for examining application, Return, Vulnerable person
This case examined the compatibility of the Dublin II Regulation with the European Convention on Human Rights regarding transfers to Italy under the Dublin II Regulation.
The Court found a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights if the Swiss authorities were to send an Afghan couple and their six children back to Italy under the Dublin Regulation without having first obtained individual guarantees from the Italian authorities that the applicants would be taken charge of in...
Date: 04-11-2014
Country of Decision: Slovenia
Country of Applicant: Tunisia
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Material reception conditions, Non-refoulement, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application
Once the Applicant states in his application for international protection that his human rights and fundamental freedoms would be violated if he was returned to the recipient country (in this case Bulgaria) in accordance with the Dublin Regulation, the Respondentmust verify whether any systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and reception conditions constitute reasonable grounds for believing that the Applicant would be exposed to a real danger of inhuman and degrading treatment in the sense of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Date: 27-03-2013
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Material reception conditions, Responsibility for examining application
The Council of State applied the reasoning employed by the CJEU in its ruling C-179-11 of 27 September 2012 and considered that temporary waiting allowance must be paid to asylum applicants subject to the Dublin II Regulation until they have actually been transferred to the Member State responsible for their asylum application.
Date: 14-02-2013
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan, Iran, Nigeria
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Material reception conditions, Non-refoulement, Responsibility for examining application, Safe third country
This case concerned the concept of ‘safe country’ within the Dublin system and respect for fundamental rights of asylum seekers. The Court held that EU law prevents the application of a conclusive presumption that Member States observe all the fundamental rights of the European Union. Art. 4 Charter must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may not transfer an asylum seeker to the Member State responsible within the meaning of the Regulation where they cannot be unaware that systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions of asylum seekers in that...
Date: 21-12-2011
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Material reception conditions filterMaterial reception conditions
- (-) Remove Responsibility for examining application filterResponsibility for examining application
- Dublin Transfer 9
- Reception conditions 6
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 4
- Best interest of the child 3
- Non-refoulement 3
- Request that charge be taken 3
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 3
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 2
- Child Specific Considerations 2
- Detention 2
- Effective access to procedures 2
- Effective remedy (right to) 2
- Family unity (right to) 2
- Individual assessment 2
- Request to take back 2
- Return 2
- Safe third country 2
- Vulnerable person 2
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Delay 1
- Family member 1
- Family reunification 1
- Final decision 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- Integration measures 1
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 1
- Obligation to give reasons 1
- Personal circumstances of applicant 1
- Procedural guarantees 1
- Subsequent application 1
- Unaccompanied minor 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 3
- Syria 3
- Eritrea 2
- Congo (DRC) 1
- Guinea 1
- Iran 1
- Nigeria 1
- Tunisia 1
Filter by country of decision
- France 3
- Austria 1
- Germany 1
- Slovenia 1
- Sweden 1
- Switzerland 1
- United Kingdom 1
