Sweden - Migration Court of Appeal, 18 March 2016, UM 425-16

Country of Decision:
Country of Applicant:
Date of Decision:
MIG 2016:4
Court Name:
Migration Court of Appeal
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF version of SummaryPDF version of Summary

The Court of Appeal concluded that the referral of an appeal under the Dublin III Regulation to an administrative agency breaches an applicant’s right to efficient remedy. 


The applicant (the “Applicant”) appealed a decision by the Swedish Police Authority’s to transfer the Applicant to Hungary in accordance with the Dublin III Regulation, to the Swedish migration court (the “Migration Court”). In its decision, the Swedish Police Authority had stated that the Swedish migration agency (the “Migration Agency”) was the right forum in which to appeal the decision under  the Aliens Act (2005:716).

The Migration Court rejected the Applicant’s appeal and referred the Applicants’ case back to the Migration Agency on the basis that, according to the Aliens Act, the Swedish Police Authority’s decisions can only be appealed if such right of appeal is granted by the Aliens Act, and if so, only to the designated forum of appeal. Further, the Migration Court concluded that as the Swedish Police Authority’s decision to refuse entry according to the Aliens Act can be appealed to the Migration Agency, the Swedish Police Authority’s decision to transfer the Applicant under the Dublin III Regulation should similarly be appealed to the Migration Agency.

Both the Applicant and the Swedish Police Authority appealed the Migration Court’s decision, arguing that a right to appeal to the Migration Agency was insufficient to fulfil the Applicant’s right to an effective remedy under the Dublin III Regulation and that the Applicant had the right to have its case examined by a court.

Decision & Reasoning: 

The administrative court of appeal in Stockholm (the “Court of Appeal”) initially noted that the Dublin III Regulation has direct effect in Sweden and that it supersedes national legislation. The Court of Appeal then held that the Dublin III Regulation gives an applicant the right to have their case examined by a competent court, and that the Aliens Act’s appeal provisions cannot be applied in such way that an applicant’s case is instead appealed to an administrative agency instead of a court of law.

Based on the above, the Court of Appeal held that the Applicant’s appeal must be examined by the Migration Court. 


The Migration Court’s decision was dismissed and the Applicant’s appeal was referred back the Migration Court. 


This case summary was written by Linklaters LLP. 

This case summary was proof read by Samuel Palmer.