You are here
Home › Request to take back ›EDAL case summaries
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Accelerated procedure, Dublin Transfer, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application, Withdrawal of protection application
The CJEU ruled that a third-country national who lodged an application for international protection in a first Member State, then left and subsequently lodged a new application in a second Member State is not entitled to rely, in an action brought under Article 27(1) DRIII in that second Member State against a decision to transfer them, on the criterion for defining responsibility stablished in Article 9. To conclude otherwise would not be in conformity with the Regulation’s general purpose to prevent secondary movements of individuals and the principle that...
Date: 02-04-2019
Country of Applicant: Eritrea, Syria
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application
The CJEU ruled on the time limit for Member States to respond to requests for re-examination of "take charge" or "take back" requests and clarified that Member States should endeavour to respond within two weeks; if they do not the requesting Member State retains responsibility.
Date: 13-11-2018
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Eritrea
Keywords: Delay, Dublin Transfer, First country of asylum, Request to take back
The Council of State decided on the date from which the 6-month time limit provided by Article 29§1 of the Dublin regulation 604/2013 begins running or when it starts running again in case of an interruption. At the expiry of this deadline, the responsibility of the examination of an asylum claim falls back to the Member State which requested another Member State that charge be taken or to take back, as it did not proceed to the applicant’s transfer. The Council specified that this deadline starts running once the other Member State has accepted the request that charge be taken or...
Date: 24-09-2018
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application
Article 26(1) of the Dublin III Regulation precludes the issuance of a transfer decision by the determining Member-State until the requested Member-State implicitly or explicitly accepts the take charge/back request.
Date: 31-05-2018
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application
Article 26(1) of the Dublin III Regulation precludes the issuance of a transfer decision by the determining Member-State until the requested Member-State implicitly or explicitly accepts the take charge/back request.
Date: 31-05-2018
Country of Decision: Italy
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Request to take back, Safe country of origin
The request submitted by the Italian authorities to Norway to take back the applicant would imply his immediate repatriation to his country of origin, Afghanistan, which, in the light of the Court’s reasoning, is not to be considered a safe country.
Date: 25-05-2018
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 Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Request to take back, Responsibility for examining application, Subsequent application
The carrying out of a transfer does not, in itself, definitively establish the responsibility of the Member State to which the person concerned has been transferred.
A Member State, to which an applicant has returned after being transferred, is not allowed to transfer that person anew to the requested Member State without respecting a take back procedure. In those circumstances, a take back request must be submitted within the periods prescribed in Article 24(2) of the Dublin III Regulation, which begins to run from the time the requesting...
Date: 25-01-2018
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
Pages
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 55
- Responsibility for examining application 36
- Effective remedy (right to) 16
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 12
- Detention 10
- Effective access to procedures 10
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 9
- First country of asylum 8
- Procedural guarantees 8
- Request that charge be taken 8
- Subsequent application 8
- Non-refoulement 7
- Return 7
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 6
- Family unity (right to) 6
- Reception conditions 6
- Inadmissible application 5
- Real risk 5
- Refugee Status 5
- Safe third country 5
- Accelerated procedure 4
- Best interest of the child 4
- Health (right to) 4
- Humanitarian considerations 4
- Material reception conditions 4
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 4
- Unaccompanied minor 4
- Vulnerable person 4
- Child Specific Considerations 3
- Delay 3
- Dependant (Dependent person) 3
- Family member 3
- Obligation to give reasons 3
- Personal interview 3
- Subsidiary Protection 3
- Withdrawal of protection application 3
- Access to the labour market 2
- Burden of proof 2
- Country of origin information 2
- Individual assessment 2
- Individual threat 2
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 2
- Personal circumstances of applicant 2
- Protection 2
- Residence document 2
- Accommodation centre 1
- Country of former habitual residence 1
- Country of origin 1
- Crime against humanity 1
- Duty of applicant 1
- Final decision 1
- Indirect refoulement 1
- Indiscriminate violence 1
- Integration measures 1
- Nationality 1
- Persecution (acts of) 1
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 1
- Relevant Documentation 1
- Relevant Facts 1
- Safe country of origin 1
- Serious harm 1
- Standard of proof 1
- Torture 1
- Visa 1
- Well-founded fear 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 8
- Iran 8
- Eritrea 6
- Syria 5
- Iraq 3
- Pakistan 3
- Russia (Chechnya) 3
- Sudan 3
- Unknown 3
- Mali 2
- Russia 2
- Algeria 1
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
- Congo (DRC) 1
- Gambia 1
- Georgia 1
- Guinea 1
- Guinea-Bissau 1
- Ivory Coast 1
- Libya 1
- Morocco 1
- Nigeria 1
- Somalia 1
- Tunisia 1
- Ukraine 1
Filter by country of decision
- Austria 12
- Germany 10
- France 8
- Luxembourg 4
- Netherlands 4
- Slovenia 3
- United Kingdom 3
- Italy 2
- Switzerland 2
- Belgium 1
- Hungary 1
