EDAL case summaries
The three-month time limit for take back requests, as prescribed by Article 21(1) of the Dublin III Regulation, will apply as soon as the competent authorities of the relevant Member State have been informed, with certainty, of the fact that international protection has been requested. Where certain responsibilities for the registration of applications have been delegated to a competent legal entity, the authorities will be deemed to have been so informed once the legal entity in question has made a written record of the applicant’s intention to claim asylum.
The Federal Administrative Court rules, that the significant risk of absconding for ‘Dublin-detention’ orders must always be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The sole existence of a ground for detention as set out in Art. 76a(2) AuG does not automatically indicate a significant risk absconding. Such an order is unlawful and must be rescinded. The Court ‘warns’ the SEM that the current practices are very concerning and require adaptation.
The right to be represented by a lawyer in the context of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 will only apply when an appeal to a return decision has been lodged and free legal assistance will be subject to national domestic legislation.
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Procedural guarantees filterProcedural guarantees
- Detention 1
- Dublin Transfer 1
- Effective access to procedures 1
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 1
- Obligation to give reasons 1
- Request to take back 1
- Residence document 1
- Responsibility for examining application 1
- Return 1
- Visa 1
Filter by country of applicant
- (-) Remove Algeria filterAlgeria
Filter by country of decision
- France 1
- Switzerland 1