EDAL case summaries
As a result of a transfer order to Italian authorities joined with house arrest, the applicant lodged an appeal. She argued she would be at risk of being exposed to inhuman and degrading treatments, as well as to systemic lapses of the Italian asylum system. In this case, the administrative tribunal granted annulment of those orders issued by the prefect of la Haute-Garonne in the light of the current Italian asylum conditions and the reasons motivating the applicant to reach France after having stayed in Italy.
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...
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.
The presumption that Italy remains in compliance with its EU and International Law obligations related to the reception and integration of asylum seekers and Beneficiaries of International Protection has not been rebutted. Asylum seekers and BIPs suffering from severe psychological trauma can be returned to Italy with no real risk of breaching article 3 ECHR, or 4 CFREU, since the Country's reception capacities have not been exceeded, while effective medical treatment is available under the same terms as to Italian nationals.
A Member State is responsible for the asylum application of an unaccompanied minor if the minor does not have a family member in said Member State and the minor's application has been finally rejected in another Member State, provided that the unaccompanied minor resides in the relevant Member State.
The responsibility for examining an application does not cease to apply upon the mere acceptance of a request to take charge by another Member State.
This case examined the compatibility of the Dublin II Regulation with the European Convention on Human Rights regarding transfers to Italy under the Dublin II Regulation.
The Court found a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights if the Swiss authorities were to send an Afghan couple and their six children back to Italy under the Dublin Regulation without having first obtained individual guarantees from the Italian authorities that the applicants would be taken charge of in...
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.
This was an appeal against the decision by the Federal Asylum Office to transfer the first applicant to Poland and the second applicant, including their two children, to the Czech Republic. The Asylum Court allowed the appeal and found the consultations with other Member States and the decisions of the Federal Asylum Office to be arbitrary, ignoring national legislation requiring one procedure for the whole family and violating the Dublin II Regulation’s emphasis on the necessity of maintaining family unity as well as Article 8 of the ECHR.
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Responsibility for examining application filterResponsibility for examining application
- (-) Remove Vulnerable person filterVulnerable person
- Dublin Transfer 6
- Best interest of the child 4
- Family unity (right to) 4
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 4
- Reception conditions 4
- Request that charge be taken 4
- Unaccompanied minor 3
- Child Specific Considerations 2
- Family member 2
- Humanitarian considerations 2
- Material reception conditions 2
- Request to take back 2
- Return 2
- Accommodation centre 1
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 1
- Delay 1
- Effective access to procedures 1
- Effective remedy (right to) 1
- Family reunification 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Individual assessment 1
- Integration measures 1
- Personal circumstances of applicant 1
- Procedural guarantees 1
- Real risk 1
- Safe third country 1
- Trafficking in human beings 1
- Visa 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 2
- Eritrea 2
- Russia (Chechnya) 2
- Iraq 1
- Nigeria 1
- Sudan 1
- Syria 1
Filter by country of decision
- United Kingdom 3
- Austria 2
- France 1
- Germany 1