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 › National Case law ›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: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Eritrea
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Child Specific Considerations, Delay, Dublin Transfer, Effective access to procedures, Procedural guarantees, Responsibility for examining application, Unaccompanied minor, Vulnerable person
Article 17 forms an integral part of the Dublin Regulation and should be applied in a manner which furthers the aims and objectives of the Regulation in general. Article 17 is a justiciable right and should be particularly relied upon in circumstances where one of the overarching values of the Dublin Regulation, namely expedition, is not being fulfilled in the procedures of the host Member State. Article 17 is not subject to a prior assessment of non-satisfaction of Article 8 (family reunification) of that same Regulation.
Applicants who engaged with Dublin authorities...
Date: 12-04-2017
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: Austria
Country of Applicant: Pakistan
Keywords: Country of origin information, Dublin Transfer, Indirect refoulement, Request that charge be taken, Responsibility for examining application, Procedural guarantees, Reception conditions
This was an appeal against the decision to transfer the applicant to Hungary on the ground that Hungary would transfer the applicant to Serbia, which would amount to indirect refoulement in violation of Article 3 ECHR. The Asylum Court allowed the appeal and held that, although Hungary can be assumed as a safe country, if an applicant gives individual reasons for why Hungary is not safe these must be examined in detail.
Date: 07-02-2012
Country of Decision: Belgium
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Inadmissible application, Accelerated procedure, Assessment of facts and circumstances, Dublin Transfer, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Procedural guarantees, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Detention
With this judgment, the General Assembly of CALL is trying to bring its case law in line with the M.S.S. judgment of the ECtHR.
The CALL set the conditions under which an appeal for suspension against an enforceable decision (an order to leave the territory) has automatic suspensive effect.
After a prima facie examination (in extreme urgency), the CALL decided that the applicant in this casehas a reasonable ground of appeal on the basis of Article 3 of the ECHR, as he gave sufficient indications of the concrete problems he was experiencing in Poland. The CALL derived...
Date: 17-02-2011
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: 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 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
- (-) Remove National Case law filterNational Case law
Filter by applicable legal provisions
- Article 3 6
- Article 8 3
- Article 13 1
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Procedural guarantees filterProcedural guarantees
- (-) Remove Responsibility for examining application filterResponsibility for examining application
- Dublin Transfer 9
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 3
- Reception conditions 3
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 2
- Detention 2
- Effective access to procedures 2
- Family unity (right to) 2
- Humanitarian considerations 2
- Inadmissible application 2
- Indirect refoulement 2
- Obligation to give reasons 2
- Personal circumstances of applicant 2
- Request that charge be taken 2
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Best interest of the child 1
- Burden of proof 1
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Country of origin information 1
- Delay 1
- Effective remedy (right to) 1
- Individual assessment 1
- Request to take back 1
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 1
- Subsidiary Protection 1
- Unaccompanied minor 1
- Vulnerable person 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Russia (Chechnya) 2
- Afghanistan 1
- Armenia 1
- Eritrea 1
- Niger 1
- Pakistan 1
- Russia 1
- Somalia 1
- Unknown 1
Filter by country of decision
- France 6
- Austria 2
- Belgium 1
- United Kingdom 1
