Tag Archives: Dublin Regulation
30 June 2014
On 26 June 2014, the European Commission published a proposal to amend Article 8(4) of the Dublin III Regulation, which determines the Member State responsible for examining the asylum application of an unaccompanied child. (more…)
Source: European Commission | press release | Clearer EU rules for unaccompanied minors seeking international protection | Brussels, 26 June 2014
27 April 2014
On 23 April 2014, it was reported that an Armenian asylum seeker committed suicide in the Netherlands last December. He was due to be reported to Germany pursuant to the Dublin Regulation.
He was under the supervision of the Dutch Immigration and Naturalization Service, who were aware that he had serious psychiatric problems. However, he was not given specialist help since he fell under the Dublin Regulation, according to which Germany was responsible for him.
The Dublin Regulation stipulates that asylum seekers must request refugee status in the first member state of the European Union in which they arrive.
Source: NRC | Asielzoeker die onder toezicht overheid stond, pleegde zelfmoord
11 June 2013
On 6 June 2013, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Austria violated an asylum seeker’s right to an effective remedy (Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights) against the decision to be sent back to Hungary under the Dublin regulation.
The applicant, a Sudanese asylum seeker, had also presented a claim of possible ill-treatment and refoulement (Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights) in Hungary if returned under the Dublin regulation. The ECtHR held that his transfer would not violate Article 3.
Source: European Court of Human Rights | Case of Mohammed v. Austria | Application no. 2283/12 | Judgment | 6 June 2013
1 June 2013
The European Court of Human Rights declared inadmissible a complaint brought against Italy and the Netherlands of an asylum seeker whose transfer to Italy was ordered by the Dutch authorities pursuant to the EU Dublin Regulation (Mohammed Hussein a.o. v the Netherlands and Italy). The Court’s rigorous scrutiny of the treatment of asylum seekers in Italy suggests that it aimed to set a standard for similar cases.
After the European Court had declared the intra-EU transfer of an asylum seeker to Greece in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights in January 2011 (the case of M.S.S., see also here), litigation in several Member States shifted to other allegedly unsafe countries for asylum seekers, in particular Italy. Some NGOs highlighted failures in the Italian protection system and advised to refrain from deporting asylum seekers to Italy (see here and here). (more…)