EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Effective remedy (right to), Family member, Family reunification, Family unity (right to), Humanitarian considerations, Personal circumstances of applicant, Request that charge be taken, Responsibility for examining application, Sponsor, Vulnerable person
The discretionary clause in Art. 17 II Dublin-III regulation might under certain circumstances oblige the member states to take charge of an applicant. This can be particularly the case, if the competence of the member state under chapter III of the Dublin-III regulation would not be given because of a deadline expiry the applicant had no influence on.
Date: 15-03-2019
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Dublin Transfer, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Reception conditions, Responsibility for examining application, Trafficking in human beings, Vulnerable person
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.
Date: 09-11-2018
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: 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 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: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan, Eritrea, Sudan
Keywords: Accommodation centre, Dublin Transfer, First country of asylum, Humanitarian considerations, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Integration measures, Real risk, Reception conditions, Request that charge be taken, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application, Return, Safe third country, Vulnerable person
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.
Date: 22-04-2015
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Iraq
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Family member, Request that charge be taken, Responsibility for examining application, Unaccompanied minor, Vulnerable person
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.
Date: 09-12-2014
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Child Specific Considerations, Dublin Transfer, Family unity (right to), Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Material reception conditions, Personal circumstances of applicant, Reception conditions, Responsibility for examining application, Return, Vulnerable person
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...
Date: 04-11-2014
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: Dublin Transfer, Request that charge be taken, Responsibility for examining application, Visa, Family unity (right to), Vulnerable person
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.
Date: 13-11-2009
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 8
- Family unity (right to) 5
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 5
- Request that charge be taken 5
- Best interest of the child 4
- Family member 4
- Reception conditions 4
- Child Specific Considerations 3
- Humanitarian considerations 3
- Personal circumstances of applicant 3
- Return 3
- Unaccompanied minor 3
- Effective remedy (right to) 2
- Family reunification 2
- Individual assessment 2
- Material reception conditions 2
- Request to take back 2
- Accommodation centre 1
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 1
- Credibility assessment 1
- Delay 1
- Dependant (Dependent person) 1
- Effective access to procedures 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Integration measures 1
- Procedural guarantees 1
- Real risk 1
- Safe third country 1
- Sponsor 1
- Standard of proof 1
- Trafficking in human beings 1
- Visa 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 3
- Eritrea 2
- Russia (Chechnya) 2
- Syria 2
- Iraq 1
- Nigeria 1
- Sudan 1
Filter by country of decision
- Austria 3
- United Kingdom 3
- Germany 2
- France 1
