EDAL case summaries
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.
Where the transfer does not take place within the six months’ time limit, the Member State responsible shall be relieved of its obligations to take charge or to take back the person concerned and responsibility shall then be transferred to the requesting Member State Art. 29 (2) of the Dublin III Regulation.
In a decision on whether the return of an unaccompanied minor to Hungary under the Dublin Regulation is unlawful in light of Art. 3 ECHR and therefore the sovereignty clause should be used, Art. 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union(CFRU – best interest of the child as a primary consideration for authorities) is significant.
Art 3 and Art 15 Dublin Regulation are only applicable if there exist compelling reasons to believe the receiving country is incapable of welcoming asylum applicants in appropriate conditions or if the applicants can prove that they personally risk being subjected to ill treatment or not benefitting fully from an effective right to asylum. In this case, the applicants had not demonstrated they were personally victims of ill treatment in Poland. Poland was considered to offer sufficient guarantees against deportation and for an effective and impartial asylum procedure.
The interview report established by an officer of a Prefecture is admissible evidence even if it has not been signed and was conducted without the assistance of an interpreter. When an asylum applicant denies having made statements recorded in that report, he must provide evidence. In this case, the applicant did not provide evidence that he had not crossed Italy and, in a written letter addressed to the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons, he even mentioned having crossed Italy.
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Burden of proof filterBurden of proof
- (-) Remove Responsibility for examining application filterResponsibility for examining application
- Dublin Transfer 4
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2
- Procedural guarantees 2
- Reception conditions 2
- Request to take back 2
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 2
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 1
- Best interest of the child 1
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Humanitarian considerations 1
- Individual assessment 1
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 1
- Non-refoulement 1
- Return 1
- Unaccompanied minor 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 2
- Libya 1
- Russia (Chechnya) 1
- Unknown 1