EDAL case summaries
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
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Mali
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Non-refoulement, Request that charge be taken, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application, Subsequent application, Withdrawal of protection application
The transfer of an applicant for asylum to Malta violates the Regulation (EU) no 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 (“Dublin III Regulation”) because Malta’s asylum procedures and system show systemic deficiencies with the inherent risk of subjecting an applicant for asylum to inhuman or degrading treatment.
Date: 05-11-2015
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Iran
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Request that charge be taken, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application
An application to establish the suspensive effect of a pending appeal pursuant to Section 80, Paragraph 5 of the German Code of Administrative Court Procedure (Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung – VwGO) is not a legal remedy under Article 20, Paragraph 1 (d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 (“Dublin II Regulation”). A German court’s dismissal of a Section 80, Paragraph 5 application does therefore not suspend the 6-month deadline under Article 20, Paragraph 2 of the Dublin II Regulation for a member state of the European Union (“Member...
Date: 05-08-2015
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
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 18
- Inadmissible application 5
- Reception conditions 5
- Request to take back 5
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 5
- Subsequent application 5
- Delay 4
- Vulnerable person 4
- Family unity (right to) 3
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 3
- Material reception conditions 3
- Procedural guarantees 3
- Best interest of the child 2
- Detention 2
- Effective access to procedures 2
- Effective remedy (right to) 2
- Family member 2
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 2
- Non-refoulement 2
- Obligation to give reasons 2
- Return 2
- Unaccompanied minor 2
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Accommodation centre 1
- Country of origin information 1
- Family reunification 1
- Final decision 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Humanitarian considerations 1
- Indirect refoulement 1
- Integration measures 1
- Real risk 1
- Refugee Status 1
- Residence document 1
- Safe third country 1
- Subsidiary Protection 1
- Visa 1
- Withdrawal of protection application 1
Filter by country of applicant
Filter by country of decision
- Germany 6
- Austria 4
- France 3
- United Kingdom 2
- Ireland 1
- Spain 1
- Switzerland 1
