EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Delay, Dublin Transfer, First country of asylum, Request to take back
The Council of State grants the appeal lodged by the Minister of the Interior, who asked for the annulment of the order issued by the administrative tribunal’s relief judge. The latter had suspended not only the execution of the decision refusing to register M. A…’s asylum application, but also the execution regarding his transfer, by ruling ultra petita. After qualifying M. A…’s non-attendance to the repeated notifications sent for the purpose of his transfer as being intentional and systematic, the Council of State concludes in this case that no violation was found against M. A...
Date: 16-03-2018
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Country of origin information, Dublin Transfer, Indiscriminate violence, Request to take back, Subsidiary Protection
An internal armed conflict, characterised by armed clashes, prevails throughout the whole territory of Afghanistan. The situation in the Kabul region and the city itself constitutes indiscriminate violence resulting from this internal armed conflict.
Transferring a family to Finland under the Dublin Regulation where their asylum application and subsequent appeals have been rejected is unlawful on account of the humanitarian and security situation in Afghanistan.
Date: 13-03-2018
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Sudan
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Effective access to procedures, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Material reception conditions, Reception conditions, Request to take back
There are systemic deficiencies in the Italian asylum procedure and in its reception conditions for asylum applicants which amount to inhuman or degrading treatment.
Date: 05-01-2018
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Algeria
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Procedural guarantees, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application, Visa
The three-month time limit for take back requests, as prescribed by Article 21(1) of the Dublin III Regulation, will apply as soon as the competent authorities of the relevant Member State have been informed, with certainty, of the fact that international protection has been requested. Where certain responsibilities for the registration of applications have been delegated to a competent legal entity, the authorities will be deemed to have been so informed once the legal entity in question has made a written record of the applicant’s intention to claim asylum.
Date: 22-12-2017
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Unknown
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Request that charge be taken, Request to take back
The following question is referred to the CJEU under the expedited procedure provided for in Article 105 of the Rules of Procedure:
Does Article 26 of the Dublin Regulation III prevent the competent authorities in a Member State, who have requested another Member State to take responsibility under a take back or take charge request of an applicant who has applied for international protection (which has not yet been ruled definitely upon) or any other person caught by Article 18(1)(c) or (d), from taking a transfer decision and notifying the applicant before the requested State has...
Date: 16-12-2016
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Congo (DRC)
Keywords: Detention, Dublin Transfer, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Personal interview, Request to take back
The applicant had sufficiently established that if returned to Hungary under the Dublin Regulation he would not benefit from an examination of his asylum application in line with procedural guarantees as required by the right to asylum. Such a transfer decision thus violated Article 4 of the Charter.
Date: 27-09-2016
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Guinea
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, First country of asylum, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application, Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect)
The Applicant appealed a decision ordering his transfer to another Member State responsible for examining his application for international protection because the six-month period during which his transfer had to be carried out in accordance with Regulation (EU) no. 604/2013 known as “Dublin III” (the “Dublin III Regulation”) had expired.
The Council of State denied the appeal holding that the six-month period was interrupted by the legal action against the transfer measure but had not restarted because the appeal was still pending when the Préfet ...
Date: 04-03-2015
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Request to take back filterRequest to take back
- Dublin Transfer 7
- Effective access to procedures 2
- First country of asylum 2
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 2
- Responsibility for examining application 2
- Country of origin information 1
- Delay 1
- Detention 1
- Effective remedy (right to) 1
- Indiscriminate violence 1
- Individual assessment 1
- Material reception conditions 1
- Personal interview 1
- Procedural guarantees 1
- Reception conditions 1
- Request that charge be taken 1
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 1
- Subsidiary Protection 1
- Visa 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 2
- Algeria 1
- Congo (DRC) 1
- Guinea 1
- Sudan 1
- Unknown 1
Filter by country of decision
- (-) Remove France filterFrance
