EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Georgia
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Procedural guarantees, Responsibility for examining application
This was an appeal against the decision to transfer an asylum applicant to Poland. The Council of State rejected the applicant’s claim that he was not informed about the Dublin procedure in a language intelligible to him, as the applicant had indicated he understood Russian and an interpreter had been provided. Moreover, the circumstances necessary to apply Art 3(2) Dublin Regulation had not been met.
Date: 24-12-2010
Country of Decision: Sweden
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Responsibility for examining application, Dublin Transfer, Humanitarian considerations, Non-refoulement
A transfer to Greece within the framework of the Dublin Regulation was stopped due to the conditions for asylum seekers in the country.
Date: 10-12-2010
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Delay, Detention, Dublin Transfer, Duty of applicant, Responsibility for examining application
The failure of an asylum applicant to appear with her children (systematically or repeatedly) when summoned in relation to a transfer order under the Dublin Regulation is considered as absconding and results in the extension of the transfer deadline to 18 months. In this case, the applicant never appeared with her children despite receiving several notifications and, according to the Council of State, she was aware that the presence of her children was crucial in order to proceed with her transfer.
Date: 19-11-2010
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Responsibility for examining application, Family unity (right to)
After the applicant absconded the time frame for a deportation was extended by 18 months and, therefore, Poland’s original acceptance was still valid at the time of the second application. Art 7 Dublin II Regulation is not applicable because the applicant’s family life was established after his first application for asylum. There is no violation of Art 8 ECHR because the applicant’s family life was formed at a moment when the applicant did not know whether he would be able to maintain it.
Date: 24-09-2010
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Detention, Dublin Transfer, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Procedural guarantees, Reception conditions, Responsibility for examining application
The French authorities shall use the sovereignty clause in the Dublin Regulation, under the judge’s supervision, when the rules that determine responsibility of a member state for the asylum procedure may infringe on international and national rights guaranteed to refugees and applicants for asylum. In this case a transfer order to Hungary, where the applicant had on two occasions been detained in unsuitable conditions, was held to be an unlawful infringement of the applicant’s right to asylum.
Date: 29-07-2010
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Family member, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application, Subsequent application, Family unity (right to)
In this case, the Austrian Asylum Court held the decision of the Federal Asylum Office not to grant refugee status to the applicant’s child was a violation of Austrian asylum law since the child’s father had been granted refugee status. The Court also held a separation of the newborn child from its mother violates Art 8 ECHR and, therefore, the applicant’s asylum application has to be admitted to the procedure on the merits.
Date: 29-07-2010
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
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: Humanitarian considerations, Dublin Transfer, Family member, Responsibility for examining application, Family unity (right to)
In appealing a decision to transfer the wife and children of an asylum applicant to Poland, the applicants relied on the humanitarian provision in Art 15 Dublin Regulation. They also noted Art 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation states separation of family members should be avoided and that such a separation would violate Art 8 ECHR. The Austrian Asylum Court allowed the appeal on the basis of Austrian asylum law, under which family members of an asylum applicant have the right to receive the same status as the applicant.
Date: 19-04-2010
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Unknown
Keywords: Responsibility for examining application, Procedural guarantees
The failure to respect the procedural guarantees provided under Article 3.4 of the Dublin II Regulation constitutes a serious and manifestly illegal infringement of the right of asylum.
Date: 17-03-2010
Country of Decision: Austria
Country of Applicant: Russia (Chechnya)
Keywords: Humanitarian considerations, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Dublin Transfer, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application, Family unity (right to), Health (right to), Vulnerable person
An expulsion order in relation to an elderly woman with a deteriorating medical condition gave rise to a real risk of a violation of Art 3 and Art 8 ECHR. In light of this risk, the Asylum Court held that the sovereignty clause in the Dublin Regulation should be applied in combination with Article 15 of the same Regulation, even though the latter was not directly applicable in this case.
Date: 28-01-2010
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Responsibility for examining application filterResponsibility for examining application
- Dublin Transfer 9
- Family unity (right to) 4
- Humanitarian considerations 4
- Procedural guarantees 4
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 3
- Request to take back 3
- Burden of proof 2
- Detention 2
- Family member 2
- Non-refoulement 2
- Reception conditions 2
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Best interest of the child 1
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Delay 1
- Duty of applicant 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Return 1
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 1
- Subsequent application 1
- Unaccompanied minor 1
- Vulnerable person 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Russia (Chechnya) 5
- Afghanistan 3
- Georgia 1
- Russia 1
- Unknown 1
