EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Family member, Family reunification, Family unity (right to), Request that charge be taken, Responsibility for examining application
There is a case of urgent necessity concerning interim measures according to § 123 VwGO obliging a Member State to accept a take charge request regarding the asylum applications of family members of a person entitled to subsidiary protection in that state when the decision on an asylum application of these family members is imminent in the requesting state.
Date: 27-03-2019
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: Germany
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Best interest of the child, Dublin Transfer, Family reunification, Family unity (right to), Request that charge be taken, Responsibility for examining application, Unaccompanied minor
Article 8 (1) of the Dublin III Regulation provides for a subjective right to family reunification, both for the applicant himself and for the family members present in the Member State responsible. This right is also justiciable to the extent that denial of transfer affects the rights to family unity and the best interest of an unaccompanied minor.
The expiry of the time limit for the submission of a take charge request pursuant to Article 21 (1) of the Dublin III Regulation, as well as for the submission of a request to review the rejection of a take charge request (so-called "...
Date: 20-12-2018
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, First country of asylum, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Real risk, Request that charge be taken, Responsibility for examining application
The impossibility to proceed with an asylum applicant’s transfer to another Member State responsible for examining the asylum application is established once there is a clear and real risk for the interested party to be subject to torture or inhuman or degrading treatments within the meaning of articles 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU), even in the absence of having serious reasons to believe there are systemic failures in the Member State’s asylum system.
Date: 28-06-2018
Country of Decision: Switzerland
Country of Applicant: Iraq
Keywords: Delay, Dublin Transfer, Request that charge be taken, Responsibility for examining application
The Federal Administrative Court changed its jurisprudence concerning those competence provisions of the Dublin-III-Regulation that can be challenged with a complaint against a decision not to take charge. The Court follows the approach taken by the CJEU in Ghezelbash (C-63/15) and Mengesteab (C-670/16) and allows complaints based on missing the term to request another Member State to take charge (Article 21(1) Dublin-III-Regulation). If successful, the Member State responsible for requesting to take charge will, itself, be in charge to deal with the asylum application...
Date: 21-12-2017
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Eritrea
Keywords: Delay, Dublin Transfer, Effective access to procedures, Inadmissible application, Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Material reception conditions, Obligation to give reasons, Procedural guarantees, Request that charge be taken, Responsibility for examining application, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect)
Both applicants seek legal assistance and to register their application for asylum, which was previously refused by the Alpes Maritimes Prefect. The interim relief judge decided that the Prefect’s refusal to provide the individuals with an application form to register their application for asylum, notwithstanding their presence within the territory and contact with the police, amounted to a serious breach of the right to asylum.
Date: 31-03-2017
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: 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: Dublin Transfer, Inadmissible application, Request that charge be taken, Responsibility for examining application, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Subsequent application, Subsidiary Protection
When a Member State accepts a request by Germany to take charge of an applicant in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 (the “Dublin II Regulation”), the applicant may be transferred to that Member State even if he/she limits his/her application to subsidiary protection after the request to take charge has been accepted.
Date: 22-03-2016
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
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Request that charge be taken filterRequest that charge be taken
- (-) Remove Responsibility for examining application filterResponsibility for examining application
- Dublin Transfer 21
- Family unity (right to) 6
- Inadmissible application 5
- Reception conditions 5
- Request to take back 5
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 5
- Subsequent application 5
- Vulnerable person 5
- Delay 4
- Family member 4
- Family reunification 4
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 4
- Best interest of the child 3
- Effective access to procedures 3
- Effective remedy (right to) 3
- Material reception conditions 3
- Procedural guarantees 3
- Unaccompanied minor 3
- Detention 2
- First country of asylum 2
- Humanitarian considerations 2
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 2
- Non-refoulement 2
- Obligation to give reasons 2
- Real risk 2
- Return 2
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Accommodation centre 1
- Country of origin information 1
- Final decision 1
- Indirect refoulement 1
- Integration measures 1
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 1
- Personal circumstances of applicant 1
- Refugee Status 1
- Residence document 1
- Safe third country 1
- Sponsor 1
- Subsidiary Protection 1
- Visa 1
- Withdrawal of protection application 1
Filter by country of applicant
Filter by country of decision
- Germany 9
- Austria 4
- France 4
- United Kingdom 2
- Ireland 1
- Spain 1
- Switzerland 1
