You are here
Home › Responsibility for examining application › Procedural guarantees › Council of Europe Instruments › EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms › France ›EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Indirect refoulement, Obligation to give reasons, Personal circumstances of applicant, Procedural guarantees, Responsibility for examining application, Subsidiary Protection
The Dublin Regulation does not prevent France from being competent to examine the applicant's asylum application, given the existence of orders from the German authorities imposing an obligation to return to Somalia, where risk of inhuman treatment cannot be excluded.
Any decision must be reasoned and translated into a language understandable to the applicant.
Date: 24-09-2018
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Niger
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Dublin Transfer, Individual assessment, Personal circumstances of applicant, Procedural guarantees, Responsibility for examining application
The Administrative Court judged that a full and rigorous examination of the consequences of transferring the applicant back to Italy is required, given the delicate and evolving situation in the country. As this was not done the prefecture’s decision to refuse to examine the asylum application and send her back to Italy was annulled. The case was remitted to the prefecture for re-examination.
Date: 22-06-2015
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Detention, Dublin Transfer, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Procedural guarantees, Reception conditions, Responsibility for examining application
The French authorities shall use the sovereignty clause in the Dublin Regulation, under the judge’s supervision, when the rules that determine responsibility of a member state for the asylum procedure may infringe on international and national rights guaranteed to refugees and applicants for asylum. In this case a transfer order to Hungary, where the applicant had on two occasions been detained in unsuitable conditions, was held to be an unlawful infringement of the applicant’s right to asylum.
Date: 29-07-2010
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Unknown
Keywords: Responsibility for examining application, Procedural guarantees
The failure to respect the procedural guarantees provided under Article 3.4 of the Dublin II Regulation constitutes a serious and manifestly illegal infringement of the right of asylum.
Date: 17-03-2010
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: Burden of proof, Dublin Transfer, Humanitarian considerations, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Procedural guarantees, Reception conditions, Responsibility for examining application
Art 3 and Art 15 Dublin Regulation are only applicable if there exist compelling reasons to believe the receiving country is incapable of welcoming asylum applicants in appropriate conditions or if the applicants can prove that they personally risk being subjected to ill treatment or not benefitting fully from an effective right to asylum. In this case, the applicants had not demonstrated they were personally victims of ill treatment in Poland. Poland was considered to offer sufficient guarantees against deportation and for an effective and impartial asylum procedure.
Date: 11-01-2010
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Armenia
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Family unity (right to), Humanitarian considerations, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Procedural guarantees, Responsibility for examining application
When a transfer under the Dublin Regulation would result in a violation of fundamental rights, the Member State in which the applicant is present can examine the asylum application even though another State should have been responsible under the Dublin Regulation. In this case, the applicant’s wife was allowed to remain in France as she was in the advanced stage of pregnancy and, therefore, transferring the applicant would violate Art 8 ECHR.
Date: 25-11-2003
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Procedural guarantees filterProcedural guarantees
- (-) Remove Responsibility for examining application filterResponsibility for examining application
- Dublin Transfer 5
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 3
- Humanitarian considerations 2
- Personal circumstances of applicant 2
- Reception conditions 2
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 1
- Burden of proof 1
- Detention 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- Indirect refoulement 1
- Individual assessment 1
- Obligation to give reasons 1
- Subsidiary Protection 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 1
- Armenia 1
- Niger 1
- Russia (Chechnya) 1
- Somalia 1
- Unknown 1
Filter by country of decision
- (-) Remove France filterFrance
