Tag Archives: Dublin II regulation
15 December 2013
On 10 December 2013, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) issued a judgment in Case C 394/12. It held that the opportunities for an asylum seeker to challenge a decision to transfer him/her under the Dublin II Regulation are limited once a member state has agreed to take charge of the examination of his/her application. This decision can only be overturned when there are systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and reception conditions of that member state.
The case concerned a Somali national, Ms. Abdullahi, who entered Greece irregularly by boat. She travelled to Austria via the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia and Hungary. The Austrian authorities requested Hungary to take charge of her under the Dublin II Regulation, and Hungary accepted. Ms. Abdullahi appealed the transfer request and a dispute arose as to whether Greece or Hungary was responsible for examining the asylum claim in light of Article 10(1) of the Dublin II Regulation. The Austrian court asked the CJEU to clarify the procedure for determining responsibility.
Source: Court of Justice of the European Union | Case C‑394/12 | Request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Asylgerichtshof (Austria), in the proceedings Shamso Abdullahi v. Bundesasylamt | Judgment | 10 December 2013
18 November 2013
On 14 November 2013, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) held in the Bundesrepublik Deutschland v. Kaveh Puid case that a member state which is prohibited from returning an asylum seeker under the Dublin II Regulation to a country where the applicant would be at risk of being ill-treated, is not, in principle, obliged to assume responsibility for that application.
In those circumstances, as already stated in 2011 in C-411/10 N.S. and C-493/10 M.E. and others, and reiterated by the CJEU in its current ruling, the member state intending to send the asylum seeker back to another country must continue to examine the responsibility criteria set out in the Dublin Regulation to see if another member state can be made responsible.
If no other country can be identified as responsible for examining the application, the member state where the asylum seeker is located must assume responsibility for examining the application. The member state must also assume responsibility if the process of determining responsibility takes ‘an unreasonable length of time’.
Source: Court of Justice of the European Union | Judgment in Case C-4/11 | Press Release No 147/13 | Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Kaveh Puid | Luxembourg, 14 November 2013
14 September 2012
The Swiss Refugee Council (OSAR) has called for an immediate halt of all returns of asylum seekers to Hungary. OSAR notes with concern the numerous reports by human rights organizations highlighting serious deficiencies in the Hungarian asylum and reception system. In particular, it is emphasized that asylum seekers returned to Hungary are systematically imprisoned, abused and are likely to be given tranquillizers while in prison, as reported by the most recent report published in April 2012 by UNHCR.
Switzerland returned 99 people in 2011 and 2012 (until end of July) to Hungary under the Dublin Regulation. According to OSAR, in view of the conditions for asylum seekers in Hungary, these returns may under certain circumstances violate the international obligation of non-refoulement (see Article 33 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees) as well as Swiss law on asylum.
Source: OSAR | Stop aux renvois en Hongrie
This report summarizes the presentations and following discussions from the Expert Seminar on Shared Responsibility in International Refugee Law held in Amsterdam in May 2011. The overall aim of this Expert Seminar was to map and examine principles of collective … Read more
← Older posts
22 December 2011
On 21 December 2011, the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment in the joint cases of N.S. v Secretary of State for the Home Department and M.E. and others v. Refugee Applications Commissioner under the preliminary ruling procedure. (more…)