EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Child Specific Considerations, Credibility assessment, Dependant (Dependent person), Dublin Transfer, Family member, Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Personal circumstances of applicant, Responsibility for examining application, Return, Standard of proof, Vulnerable person
The Austrian asylum authorities have to consider every possible breach of Art. 3 ECHR (or Art. 4 CFREU respectively) when examining a Dublin transfer. A possible breach can be linked to personal circumstances of the asylum seeker and does not necessarily have to be caused by a systemic failure of the asylum system in the receiving country. A Dublin transfer is forbidden if there is a real risk of a breach of Art. 3 ECHR.
A single mother and her five minor children must be considered as particularly vulnerable and cannot be transferred from...
Date: 08-09-2015
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Pakistan
Keywords: Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Dublin Transfer, Responsibility for examining application, Reception conditions
This was an appeal against the decision to transfer an applicant to Hungary, when that applicant had first entered the EU through Greece. The argument that Greece’s formal responsibility for the applicant was “interrupted” by the applicant leaving the EU for a short term is contrary to Art 16(3) Dublin Regulation and must be dealt with by initiating procedures for a preliminary ruling at the CJEU. A preliminary ruling should also address the systemic failure of the asylum system in Greece, the risk of a violation of Art 3 ECHR and whether this results in a different Member State being...
Date: 27-06-2012
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: India
Keywords: Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Dublin Transfer, Responsibility for examining application, Reception conditions
This was an appeal against the decision to transfer the applicant to Hungary despite the applicant’s claim that he had first applied for asylum in Greece. The fact that there were no fingerprints on EURODAC did not prove the applicant had never been to Greece and according to Article 16(3) Dublin regulation Greece’s responsibility for the application would only expire if the applicant left the European Union for more than 3 months. However, since a deportation to Greece would violate Art 3 ECHR, the applicant should be admitted to the asylum procedure in Austria.
Date: 03-02-2012
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Dublin Transfer, Health (right to), Vulnerable person
This was an appeal against the decision that Poland was responsible for the asylum application of a three-month-old boy with a serious medical condition. The Austrian Federal Asylum Office did not consider the applicant’s medical condition appropriately and therefore risked violating Art 3 ECHR.
Date: 28-12-2011
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Dublin Transfer, Responsibility for examining application
Prior to the ECtHR’s decision in MSS v Greece and Belgium, the Austrian Asylum authorities generally only used the sovereignty clause in relation to “Dublin cases” concerning Greece and vulnerable persons. The Constitutional Court refused the appeal on the basis that the applicant did not fall within a vulnerable group and because the Asylum Court’s decision was taken prior to MSS v Greece and Belgium.
Date: 22-09-2011
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Guinea
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Detention, Dublin Transfer, Final decision, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Material reception conditions, Non-refoulement, Reception conditions, Request that charge be taken, Responsibility for examining application, Return, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Subsequent application
Legality of detention in the event of imminent deportation to Greece, if the detention was imposed before the judgment by the ECtHR in the case M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece (application no. 30696/09) and there is an enforceable expulsion decision.
Date: 28-06-2011
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Health (right to), Reception conditions, Vulnerable person
The Constitutional Court allowed an appeal against a decision to expel a single mother and her three minor children to Greece. It is necessary that Greece ensure appropriate accommodation will be provided for vulnerable persons in each case. The applicants are vulnerable persons and the lack of assurance from Greece, therefore, gave rise to a real risk of a violation of Art 3 ECHR.
Date: 07-10-2010
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: Humanitarian considerations, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Dublin Transfer, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application, Family unity (right to), Health (right to), Vulnerable person
An expulsion order in relation to an elderly woman with a deteriorating medical condition gave rise to a real risk of a violation of Art 3 and Art 8 ECHR. In light of this risk, the Asylum Court held that the sovereignty clause in the Dublin Regulation should be applied in combination with Article 15 of the same Regulation, even though the latter was not directly applicable in this case.
Date: 28-01-2010
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Dublin Transfer, Procedural guarantees, Family unity (right to), Health (right to), Reception conditions, Vulnerable person
A decision to expel an applicant with post-traumatic stress disorder to Poland did not violate Art 3 ECHR. The Member States guarantee, in accordance with Art 15 of the Reception Conditions Directive, to provide asylum applicants with the necessary medical treatment. Only in very exceptional cases does an expulsion violate Art 3 ECHR, even less frequently in cases of expulsions under the Dublin II regulation.
Date: 06-03-2008
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
- EN - Dublin II Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 9
- EN - Reception Conditions Directive, Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 3
- EN - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2
- EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 1
- EN - Dublin III Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013 of 26 June 2013 (recast Dublin II Regulation) 1
- EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 1
- EN - Returns Directive, Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008 1
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment filterInhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Dublin Transfer 8
- Responsibility for examining application 6
- Reception conditions 5
- Vulnerable person 5
- Health (right to) 4
- Family unity (right to) 2
- Return 2
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Credibility assessment 1
- Dependant (Dependent person) 1
- Detention 1
- Family member 1
- Final decision 1
- Humanitarian considerations 1
- Individual assessment 1
- Material reception conditions 1
- Non-refoulement 1
- Personal circumstances of applicant 1
- Procedural guarantees 1
- Request that charge be taken 1
- Request to take back 1
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 1
- Standard of proof 1
- Subsequent application 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 3
- Russia (Chechnya) 3
- Guinea 1
- India 1
- Pakistan 1
Filter by country of decision
- (-) Remove Austria filterAustria
