You are here

Home › Responsibility for examining application › Burden of proof ›

EDAL case summaries

Germany – Administrative Court Regensburg, Order of 9 January 2019 – RN 6 S 18.50495

Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Sierra Leone
Keywords: Burden of proof, Dublin Transfer, Responsibility for examining application

The extension of the transfer period in accordance with Art. 29 para. 2 sentence 2 Dublin Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 (Dublin III Regulation) requires that the asylum applicant absconds, which has to be proven by the transferring authority.

Absconding is only the case, if the asylum applicant cannot be reached by the competent authorities for an (undefined) longer period of time. The intention to evade the authorities does not have to be proven. The circumstances of the individual case are decisive.
Date: 09-01-2019

Belgium – Council of Alien Law Litigation, X / VIII, 25 August 2016, nr. 173 581

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

Germany- Higher Administrative Court of Saxony, 5. October 2015, 5 B 259/15.A

Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Libya
Keywords: Burden of proof, Dublin Transfer, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect)

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.
Date: 05-10-2015

Austria - Asylum Court (AsylGH), 27 July 2010, S8 413923-1/2010

Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Best interest of the child, Burden of proof, Child Specific Considerations, First country of asylum, Non-refoulement, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application, Return, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect), Unaccompanied minor

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.
Date: 27-07-2010

France – Council of State, 11 January 2010, Mr. & Mme. A. v Prefect of Pyrénées-Orientales, No 335277

Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: Burden of proof, Dublin Transfer, Humanitarian considerations, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Procedural guarantees, Reception conditions, Responsibility for examining application

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.
Date: 11-01-2010

France - Administrative Court of Appeal, 3 April 2008, Mr. X., No 07NC01262

Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Unknown
Keywords: Burden of proof, Dublin Transfer, Responsibility for examining application, Procedural guarantees

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.
Date: 03-04-2008

Filter by case summary type

Filter by applicable legal provisions

Filter by date

Filter by country of applicant

Filter by country of decision