EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Eritrea
Keywords: Delay, Dublin Transfer, Effective remedy (right to), Request that charge be taken, Responsibility for examining application, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect)
Request to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling in the following issues:
1. Transfer of responsibility to the requesting member state under the Dublin Regulations due to procedural delay
2. Interlinked to this question is whether the plaintiff has a right to request a change of Member State’s responsibility.
3. Additional questions concern compliance with the Dublin Regulations and its correct implementation, primarily ...
Date: 22-12-2016
Country of Decision: Slovenia
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Non-refoulement, Personal circumstances of applicant, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application
The Constitutional Court ruled that Member States are obliged to examine all circumstances which are important from the perspective of the principle of non-refoulement, when deciding on a Dublin transfer to a responsible Member State. Due to the absolute nature of the protection afforded by the principle of non-refoulement, the assessment must take into account all the circumstances of the particular case, including the applicant's personal situation in the transferring country. In this context, it should also be assessed whether the mere removal of an individual to another country due to...
Date: 28-09-2016
Country of Decision: Italy
Country of Applicant: Unknown
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Reception conditions, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application
The asylum applicant cannot be transferred to Bulgaria because he would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment pursuant to Article 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Date: 27-09-2016
Country of Decision: Belgium
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Burden of proof, Dublin Transfer, Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Reception conditions, Responsibility for examining application
The transfer of asylum seekers from Belgium to Austria, under the Dublin Regulation, is contrary to the principle of due diligence, because the government has failed to obtain information on the effects of the moratorium of the processing of asylum applications in Austria.
Date: 25-08-2016
Country of Decision: Italy
Country of Applicant: Unknown
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Reception conditions, Responsibility for examining application
It is unlawful to transfer an asylum applicant under the Dublin Regulation to a country, in this case Bulgaria, where the reception conditions conflict with Article 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Date: 07-07-2016
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: Somalia
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Responsibility for examining application, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect)
Art 20 (3) of the Dublin III Regulation is no longer applicable when a minor subsequently enters another member state after the application for international protection of his/ her relative is completed.
Date: 24-05-2016
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: Germany
Country of Applicant: Iran
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Dublin Transfer, Effective remedy (right to), Inadmissible application, Protection, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application
If a Member State is responsible for carrying out an asylum procedure under the relevant terms of the Dublin Regulation, e.g. under Art. 29 (2) of the Dublin III Regulation, an applicant may invoke that Member State’s responsibility if it has not been positively established that another Member State (which does not have responsibility) is willing to take charge of the applicant or take him or her back.
In such a case, it can be derived from the objective and purpose of the Dublin system, as well as the fact that it constitutes the procedural dimension of the substantive rights...
Date: 27-04-2016
Country of Decision: Netherlands
Country of Applicant: Eritrea
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application
This case relates to a take back request on grounds of Article 18(1)(d) Dublin III Regulation. Referring to the A-G opinion in Ghezelbash (Case C-63/15), the Court found that Abdullahi (C-349/12) is not applicable to the Dublin III Regulation. Hence, an applicant could call into question the application of the criteria for determining the responsible Member State in circumstances where a Member State has agreed to take back an applicant for international protection.
Date: 26-04-2016
Pages
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 14
- Request to take back 7
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 6
- Reception conditions 5
- Effective remedy (right to) 4
- Inadmissible application 4
- Request that charge be taken 4
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 3
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 2
- Best interest of the child 2
- Detention 2
- Family reunification 2
- Material reception conditions 2
- Subsequent application 2
- Burden of proof 1
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Delay 1
- Dependant (Dependent person) 1
- Family member 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- Humanitarian considerations 1
- Individual assessment 1
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 1
- Non-refoulement 1
- Personal circumstances of applicant 1
- Protection 1
- Residence document 1
- Safe third country 1
- Subsidiary Protection 1
- Unaccompanied minor 1
- Vulnerable person 1
Filter by date
- (-) Remove 2016 filter2016
- September 2016 2
- May 2016 1
- March 2016 3
- June 2016 1
- July 2016 1
- January 2016 2
- February 2016 1
- December 2016 1
- August 2016 1
- April 2016 3
Filter by country of decision
- Germany 7
- Italy 2
- United Kingdom 2
- Austria 1
- Belgium 1
- Netherlands 1
- Slovenia 1
- Sweden 1
