EDAL case summaries
Country of Applicant: Eritrea, Syria
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application
The CJEU ruled on the time limit for Member States to respond to requests for re-examination of "take charge" or "take back" requests and clarified that Member States should endeavour to respond within two weeks; if they do not the requesting Member State retains responsibility.
Date: 13-11-2018
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application, Subsequent application
The carrying out of a transfer does not, in itself, definitively establish the responsibility of the Member State to which the person concerned has been transferred.
A Member State, to which an applicant has returned after being transferred, is not allowed to transfer that person anew to the requested Member State without respecting a take back procedure. In those circumstances, a take back request must be submitted within the periods prescribed in Article 24(2) of the Dublin III Regulation, which begins to run from the time the requesting...
Date: 25-01-2018
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: 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: Germany
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Inadmissible application, Request that charge be taken, Request to take back, Residence document, Responsibility for examining application, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Subsequent application
The Federal Administrative Court (the “Court”) suspended its decision and referred the case to the European Court of Justice (“CJEU”) pursuant to Art. 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”) to obtain a preliminary ruling with regards to the following question:
Do the provisions of Regulation No. 604/2013 (“...
Date: 27-04-2016
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 Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Family unity (right to), Health (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Real risk, Refugee Status, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application
The European Court of Human Rights held that the removal of a Syrian national of Kurdish origin to Italy would not give rise to a violation of Article 3 and 8 of the Convention.
Date: 30-06-2015
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 4
- Request to take back 4
- Material reception conditions 3
- Best interest of the child 2
- Family unity (right to) 2
- Reception conditions 2
- Request that charge be taken 2
- Subsequent application 2
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 1
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Detention 1
- Effective remedy (right to) 1
- Family member 1
- Family reunification 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Inadmissible application 1
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 1
- Integration measures 1
- Real risk 1
- Refugee Status 1
- Residence document 1
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 1
- Safe third country 1
- Unaccompanied minor 1
- Vulnerable person 1
Filter by country of applicant
- (-) Remove Syria filterSyria
- Eritrea 1
Filter by country of decision
- Germany 2
- Sweden 1
- United Kingdom 1
