Tarakhel Five Switzerland: To A Greater Extent Than Or Less Other Boom Inwards The Coffin Of The Dublin System?

Professor Steve Peers, University of Essex

Introduction

Despite the EU’s purported adherence to high standards of human rights protection, the EU’s Dublin system, which allocates responsibleness for each asylum-seeker’s application to a unmarried Member State, has repeatedly run foul of human rights standards. Yesterday’s judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’, or ‘Strasbourg Court’) inwards Tarakhel v Switzerland, in addition to the recent judgment of the same courtroom inwards Sharifi v Italy in addition to Greece, take maintain farther confirmed the problems inwards making this scheme compatible amongst ECHR obligations.

In fact, the Tarakhel judgment goes farther than the prior judgments, which had just exposed the lack of sufficient human rights protection inwards the European Union legislation, every bit applied past times Member States. Rather, it is at nowadays clear that the approach of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) inwards interpreting the Dublin rules is also incompatible amongst the ECHR.

Background

The Dublin rules initially appeared every bit component subdivision of the Schengen Convention, which saltation only sure Member States. They were therefore laid out inwards the shape of the Dublin Convention, signed inwards 1990. This Convention was replaced past times an EC Regulation (known every bit the ‘Dublin II Regulation’) from 2003. That Regulation was inwards plough replaced past times the Dublin III Regulation, adopted inwards 2013, which applies to all applications made after 1 Jan 2014. Furthermore, the Dublin rules take maintain been extended to the non-EU countries associated amongst the Schengen system, past times way of treaties amongst Norway in addition to Iceland on the i hand, in addition to Switzerland and Liechtenstein on the other.

The previous leading cases on the compatibility of the Dublin regime amongst human rights were (for the Strasbourg court) the 2011 judgment inwards MSS v Kingdom of Belgium in addition to Greece, in addition to (for the CJEU) the judgment inwards NS, delivered afterwards that same year. In MSS, the ECtHR ruled that Hellenic Republic had violated Article 3 ECHR (the ban on torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment) inwards 3 ways: its handling of the Afghan asylum-seeker inwards query inwards detention; its failure to secure adequate living weather condition for him after release from detention; in addition to its highly deficient asylum procedure. The prove of these violations was found inwards numerous reports past times NGOs in addition to international bodies. The Court also ruled that Kingdom of Belgium had violated Article 3 ECHR because it had returned the same asylum-seeker to Hellenic Republic (in accordance amongst the Dublin rules), fifty-fifty though it must take maintain known of the province of affairs there. For practiced measure, the Court also ruled that Kingdom of Belgium had violated Article thirteen ECHR (the right to an effective remedy), since Kingdom of Belgium did non furnish for sufficient reviews of the merits inwards cases such every bit this one.

Subsequently, the CJEU ruled inwards NS that asylum-seekers could non live returned to Greece, pursuant to the Dublin rules, because of systematic deficiencies inwards the asylum scheme inwards that country. Removals inwards such cases would constitute a breach of Article four of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights (the equivalent of Article 3 ECHR). However, the Court distinguished such major breaches of key rights from little violations of European Union or international rules relating to refugees, which would non require Member United States of America to refrain from applying the Dublin rules.

Before the ECtHR could dominion inwards Tarakhel, the CJEU clarified its seat inwards its judgment inwards Abdullahi, delivered belatedly inwards 2013. The Court started out past times emphasising the presumption that all European Union Member United States of America protected human rights, noting that at that spot was at nowadays second-phase legislation establishing the Common European Asylum System. It therefore characterised the Dublin rules every bit essentially regulating the human relationship betwixt Member States, referring inwards detail to the optional ‘sovereignty’ in addition to ‘humanitarian’ clauses inwards the Dublin II Regulation, every bit good every bit the possibility of conciliation or carve upward arrangements betwixt Member States. It followed that when 2 Member United States of America agreed which of them was the Member State of offset authorised entry (triggering responsibleness nether the Dublin rules), an asylum-seeker could ‘only’ challenge that determination past times ‘pleading systemic deficiencies inwards the asylum physical care for in addition to inwards the weather condition for the reception of applicants for asylum’ inwards the Member State which was deemed responsible for the asylum application.

Finally, the recent Sharifi judgment of the Strasbourg Court established that Italy’s interception of asylum-seekers from Hellenic Republic inwards the Adriatic, in addition to their forced render to Greece, violated Article 3 ECHR every bit good every bit the ban on collective expulsions inwards the Fourth Protocol to the ECHR. In doing so, it confirmed a key corollary of the MSS ruling: Member United States of America breach the ECHR if they halt asylum-seekers fleeing an dangerous province straight from crossing their borders. Although the rules on liberty to move for third-country nationals inwards the Schengen Convention do non give asylum-seekers the right to displace betwixt Schengen United States of America (unless, improbably, they take maintain a visa or residence permit, or the visa requirement is waived for their province of origin), the ECHR however gives asylum-seekers the liberty to move betwixt Schengen countries (or whatsoever States) inwards such circumstances. Also, the right to displace to just about other province extends beyond the three-month fourth dimension boundary on intra-Schengen travel, since asylum-seekers tin inwards regulation remain until their claim is lastly rejected.

The Tarakhel judgment

Yesterday’s judgment concerned a theatre unit of measurement of 8 Afghans, who entered the European Union past times crossing the Italian edge first. This made Italy responsible for their applications nether the Dublin rules. However, the theatre unit of measurement shortly left the asylum-seekers’ reception centre which they were assigned to inwards Italy, on the grounds that weather condition at that spot were inadequate for families. They moved to Austria, which triggered the Dublin rules, hollo for Italy to bring accuse of them. Italy agreed, but earlier their transfer to Italy could live carried out, they moved on to Switzerland. That province inwards plough asked Italy to bring accuse of the family; Italy tacitly accepted.

However, they challenged their removal to Italy on the grounds that their handling inwards that country, if they were removed there, would violate Article 3 ECHR. They lost their instance inwards the Swiss courts, therefore asked the ECtHR to dominion that their removal to Italy would constitute a breach of Article 3, every bit good every bit Article 8 ECHR (the right to theatre unit of measurement life). They also alleged a breach of Article 13.

The ECtHR rejected the Article thirteen claim on the merits, since the Swiss courts had examined the merits of their legal arguments in addition to they were allowed to remain on Swiss territory inwards the meantime. It held that it was non necessary to examine the Article 8 argument. Most importantly, past times a bulk of 14-3, it found that at that spot was a breach of Article 3 ECHR.

Yet at that spot are of import differences betwixt the MSS judgment in addition to the Tarakhel judgment. Yesterday’s judgment does not province that Italy’s asylum scheme has effectively collapsed, every bit was the instance inwards Greece. In particular, at that spot were no allegations inwards Tarakhel relating to flaws inwards Italy’s asylum procedures, or every bit regards detention. The declaration instead was solely virtually living weather condition inwards Italian detention centres.

The ECtHR began past times reiterating its instance police clit from MSS virtually reception weather condition for asylum-seekers. While Article 3 ECHR did non guarantee a domicile or fiscal assistance, inwards cases involving European Union Member United States of America the Court took concern human relationship of their specific obligations inwards that honor nether the EU’s reception weather condition Directive. Also asylum-seekers were an ‘underprivileged in addition to vulnerable group’, in addition to it was possible that extreme poverty could heighten issues nether Article 3. The Court also referred to other prior instance police clit on the demand to ensure that kid asylum-seekers, who were inwards a seat of ‘extreme vulnerability’, enjoyed ‘protection in addition to humanitarian assistance’.

Next, the Court reiterated the commons dominion that Article 3 prevents removal if ‘substantial grounds take maintain been shown for believing’ that at that spot is a ‘real risk’ of handling reverse to Article 3 inwards the province of destination. The same dominion could live used to rebut the supposition that countries applying the Dublin scheme were all safe. In this context, the ECtHR referred to the CJEU’s ‘systemic deficiencies’ essay laid out inwards the judgment inwards NS, but made no reference to the ruling inwards Abdullahi that this was the ‘only’ Earth for challenging the application of the Dublin rules. However, the ECtHR also ‘notes’ the recent EM judgment of the Britain Supreme Court, which expressly stated that ‘systemic deficiencies’ were not the only Earth for such challenges. Overall, the Court stated that these tests had to live applied past times examining ‘the applicant’s private province of affairs inwards calorie-free of the overall province of affairs prevailing’ inwards the province of destination.

Applying these rules to this case, the applicants had made 3 complaints virtually the province of affairs of the Italian reception system. The offset complaint, virtually the slowness of identification procedures, was dismissed out of hand, since the applicants had inwards fact been identified quickly. As for the minute complaint, the Court accepted the prove that at that spot were non plenty places for all asylum applicants. Thirdly, every bit for the reception weather condition inside the available facilities, a number of problems had been identified past times the UNHCR in addition to the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner.

Taken every bit a whole, then, the Court ruled that the ‘current province of affairs inwards Italy tin inwards no way live compared to the province of affairs inwards Hellenic Republic at the fourth dimension of the MSS judgment’, where only a little fraction of asylum-seekers could live accommodated in addition to ‘the weather condition of the most extreme poverty…existed on a large scale’. So at that spot could non live ‘a bar to all removals of asylum seekers to that country’. Having said that, the Court accepted that at that spot was just about run a endangerment that asylum-seekers mightiness non larn accommodation, or that the accommodation would live inadequate.

As for the private seat of the applicants, that was non comparable to the facts of the MSS instance either.  The theatre unit of measurement inwards this instance were taken aid of straight off past times the Italian government, rather than detained in addition to therefore left to fend for themselves. But again, having said that, the Court was concerned that, inwards calorie-free of the vulnerability of asylum-seekers, in addition to children inwards particular, at that spot was no guarantee of (adequate) accommodation for families seeking asylum inwards Italy. So Switzerland could non mail the theatre unit of measurement to Italy unless they obtained sufficient assurances on this point. This lonely constituted a breach of Article 3 ECHR.

Interestingly, the bulk judgment makes no reference to the alternative possibility of asylum-seekers obtaining private theatre unit of measurement housing at the expense of the State, which the CJEU developed inwards its recent Saciri judgment on the reception weather condition Directive.

Comments

With neat respect, at that spot are many flaws amongst the CJEU’s judgment inwards Abdullahi. That judgment confuses Regulations (directly applicable inwards national legal systems) amongst Conventions (essentially governing relations betwixt States). It places undue reliance on provisions of the Dublin II Regulation which were never applied inwards practise (conciliation) or were irrelevant to the instance at manus (separate arrangements betwixt Member States). It ignores the CJEU’s ain instance police clit on the powerfulness to challenge Member States’ application of the Dublin II rules every bit regards unaccompanied minors (MA), humanitarian situations (K) or withdrawn applications (Kastrati). Its ambit is unclear: does it only apply when Member United States of America concord that the criterion regarding irregular entry is applicable, or inwards other cases every bit well? In whatsoever event, the judgment needs to live rethought inwards calorie-free of the Dublin III Regulation, which considerably expanded the procedural rights of asylum-seekers inwards the Dublin context. Why do that, if they tin only challenge their transfer if at that spot is a consummate breakdown inwards the asylum scheme of the State responsible for their application?

But the most key flaw inwards the Abdullahi judgment is precisely that: the CJEU’s declaration that at to the lowest degree inwards just about cases, the determination of the responsible Member State tin ‘only’ live challenged if at that spot are ‘systemic deficiencies’ inwards the asylum scheme of that State. Is that declaration soundless right after Tarakhel?

Certainly the declaration is incorrect if the CJEU meant (as it appeared to say) that both the asylum procedure and the reception weather condition systems take maintain to take maintain failed inwards the responsible Member State, earlier a transfer to that State tin live challenged. In Tarakhel, at that spot is no number raised regarding the asylum physical care for inwards Italy. More generally, the Italian reception scheme is non inwards consummate breakdown: the Tarakhel theatre unit of measurement faces neither extreme poverty nor vile detention conditions, but just just about run a endangerment that accommodation volition either non live available or that it volition live somewhat unpleasant. Accordingly, the Swiss obligations are nuanced: at that spot is no ban on transfers, just a procedural obligation to brand arrangements amongst the Italian authorities.

It isn’t clear whether Tarakhel abandons the CJEU’s supposition that only ‘systemic deficiencies’ inwards the asylum scheme of a responsible State tin justify a challenge to a Dublin transfer, or whether the judgment just modifies the notion of ‘systemic deficiencies’ considerably, lowering the threshold for its application. On the offset hypothesis, ‘systemic deficiencies’ are just i illustration of a province of affairs that could Pb to rebuttal of the supposition that just about other Dublin State is safe. Uncertainty virtually adequate reception weather condition for families is another. But sure this cannot live an exhaustive list.

On the minute hypothesis, a ‘systemic deficiency’ would non be only where an asylum scheme had alone collapsed, but where just about detail aspect of the scheme was malfunctioning regularly to just about extent. By analogy, a automobile needs to live fixed non only when the brakes alone neglect to work, but also when the windshield wipers occasionally malfunction. The run a endangerment is far greater inwards the offset case, but the minute instance shouldn’t live ignored either. Again, the problems inwards Tarakhel cannot live the only illustration of a flaw inwards the asylum scheme of a responsible Member State that needs to live fixed earlier asylum-seekers tin live transferred there.

There isn’t much divergence betwixt these 2 possible interpretations of Tarakhel. Although the offset interpretation is inwards regulation to a greater extent than open-ended than the minute one, it shouldn’t bring also much imagination to combat that whatsoever detail work an asylum-seeker mightiness confront inwards the responsible Member State is ‘systematic’ inwards this really wide sense. The minute interpretation does give the CJEU to a greater extent than leeway to dorsum downwards from its head-banging judgment inwards Abdullahi, in addition to explicate that this was also what it had meant past times ‘systemic deficiencies’ all along.

Of course, given the rigid insistence on the efficiency of the Dublin scheme inwards the Abdullahi judgment, this is plainly not what the Court had meant at the time. Yet the clear message from the Tarakhel instance is that at that spot is non a uncomplicated binary distinction betwixt cases when all Dublin transfers should stop, on the i hand, in addition to cases when all Dublin transfers should larn ahead at total speed, on the other. Instead, similar a traffic light, yesterday’s judgment creates an intermediate category of cases inwards which national administrations must go on amongst caution. This volition undoubtedly brand the Dublin scheme to a greater extent than costly in addition to complex to administer, but that is oft the only way to ensure that human rights are protected effectively.  

Barnard & Peers:  chapter 9, chapter 26

Share this post