Sweden - Migration Court of Appeal, 14 June 2013, UM2306-13, MIG 2013:9

Country of Decision:
Country of Applicant:
Date of Decision:
Additional Citation:
MIG 2013:9
Court Name:
Administrative Court of Appeal in Stockholm, Migration Court of Appeal
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF version of SummaryPDF version of Summary

Sweden assumes responsibility for substantively examining an asylum application from when the Applicant is granted a temporary residence document. A decision on transfer under the Dublin Regulation was overturned, and the case was returned to the Swedish Migration Board.


A applied for asylum in Sweden in September 2012. The Swedish Migration Board decided in November 2012 to reject A's application for a residence document and a work permit in Sweden and to return him to Italy in accordance with the Dublin Regulation, as it has emerged that he had entered Italy illegally. In February 2013, A was granted a temporary residence permit in Sweden. A then appealed against the Swedish Migration Board's decision, to the Migration Court, which rejected the appeal on the grounds that the temporary residence document was irrelevant to the examination of which country was responsible for examining his asylum application. On the other hand, it was noted that the residence document could be relevant to the enforcement of any transfer to Italy. A appealed against the judgment to the Migration Court of Appeal.

Decision & Reasoning: 

The Migration Court of Appeal began by referring to the definition of 'residence document' in accordance with Article 2(j) of the Dublin Regulation, which indicates that it refers to any authorisation issued in a Member State authorising a third-country national to stay in its territory. It then noted that Article 16(2) of the Dublin Regulation stipulates that a Member State that issues a residence document to the asylum seeker assumes the responsibilities indicated in Article 16(1). Furthermore, it was noted that Article 16(1)(b) states that the Member State responsible for examining an application under the criteria set out in the Dublin Regulation is obliged to complete the examination of the application.

The Migration Court of Appeal concluded that the provisions set out in the Dublin Regulation mean that responsibility for examining A's asylum application was transferred to Sweden when he was granted a temporary residence document. The Swedish authorities are thus obliged to examine his asylum application substantively. The decision to transfer him was overturned, and the case was returned to the Swedish Migration Board for re-examination.


The appeal was upheld.