Germany – Administrative Court Lüneburg, 24. May 2016, 5 A 194/ 4

Country of Decision:
Country of Applicant:
Date of Decision:
24-05-2016
Citation:
5 A 194/4
Court Name:
Administrative Court Lüneburg
Relevant Legislative Provisions:
National / Other Legislative Provisions:
Germany - AsylG (Asylum Law) Article 77
Germany - AsylG (Asylum Law) Article 26a
Germany - AsylG (Asylum Law) Article 27a
Germany - AsylG (Asylum Law) Article 27 a para 13
Germany - AsylG (Asylum Law) Article 27 a para 14
Germany - AsylG (Asylum Law) Article 27 a para 24
Germany - AsylG (Asylum Law) Article 27 a para 31
Germany - GG (Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany) – Art 6
Germany - GG (Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany) – Art 16a
Germany – VwGO (Code of Administrative Court Procedure) Art 88
Germany – VwGO (Code of Administrative Court Procedure) Art101(2)
Germany – VwGO (Code of Administrative Court Procedure) 113(1)1
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Headnote: 

Art 20 (3) of the Dublin III Regulation is no longer applicable when a minor subsequently enters another member state after the application for international protection of his/ her relative is completed.

Facts: 

The applicant (born 2009) is a Somali national and entered Germany –together with his grandparents – in August 2013.

The mother of the applicant subsequently entered Germany as well and claimed asylum on 20 February 2014. She had previously been granted refugee status in Italy on 29 June 2011.

The applicant claims that he flew directly from Ethiopia to Germany. He believes that the Dublin III Regulation is not applicable in either his or his mothers´ case. 

Decision & Reasoning: 

The Member State responsible, in accordance with the criteria set out in Art 7 (2) of the Dublin III Regulation, shall be determined on the basis of the situation at the time when the applicant first lodged his or her application for international protection with a Member State.

Contrary to the opinion of the defendant, Italy´s responsibility does not ensue from Art 20 (3) of the Dublin III Regulation. Thereafter, “for the purposes of this Regulation, the situation of a minor who is accompanying the applicant and meets the definition of family member shall be indissociable from that of his or her family member and shall be a matter for the Member State responsible for examining the application for international protection of that family member, even if the minor is not individually an applicant, provided that it is in the minor’s best interests.”

There´s no danger of separating the applicant from his mother – with due regard to Art 6 of the German Basic Law and Art 8 of the ECHR- because the mother is also entitled to a residence permit under Sections 27, 36 of the Residence Act.

Furthermore, the present case is also a special case, because the mother cannot be send back to Italy at the moment - with due regard to Art 6 of the German Basic Law  and Art 8 of the ECHR – since the Italian authorities are unable to assure that the applicant´s mother (and her 7 months old daughter as well as the applicant) will be accommodated in such a way that family unity is ensured. (see Administrative Court Lüneburg, decision from 16 May 2016 – 4 A 267/14).

Outcome: 

The application is admissible and well founded. 

Observations/Comments: 

This case summary was written by Ana-Maria Bucataru, an LLM graduate in Human Rights Law at Queen Mary's Univeristy. 

This case summary was proof read by Ann-Christin Bölter, an LLM graduate in Human Rights Law at Queen Mary's Univeristy.