What Remedies Produce Asylum-Seekers Accept Inwards The Dublin System? Details Of Novel Case

Steve Peers

Here are the questions in addition to background data inwards a novel Dutch reference to the CJEU, the commencement representative concerning the latest version of the EU's asylum responsibleness rules (known every bit the 'Dublin III Regulation'). It's a rough, unofficial translation from the original. Thanks to Flip Schuller, lawyer at Prakken D'Oliveira, for this.

Preliminary questions from the courtroom The Hague (Den Bosch)

Case number: AWB 14/12282

Brief summary of the representative

The applicant applies for asylum on 04-03-2014. Based on enquiry inwards the EU-VIS-system it turns out that the applicant received a visa from the French representation inwards Islamic Republic of Iran on the appointment 17-12-2013. This visa was valid from 17-12-2013 until 11-02-2014.

On 07-03-2014 the State Secretary for Security in addition to Justice requested French Republic to bring accuse of the application of the applicant. The French government accepted this asking on 5-5-2014.

 

The State Secretary has the sentiment that French Republic is responsible for determining the application for international protection based on article 12(4) of Regulation 604/2013. The applicant had a visa in addition to furthermore the French government accepted the take-charge asking from NL. Furthermore, the State Secretary finds that the applicant did non bear witness that he left the territories of the European Union MS since he did non supply alongside documents to underline his move from France-Iran in addition to Iran-Netherlands. He states that the submitted documents are prepared entirely on the asking of the applicant which Pb to the determination that these documents are non reliable (not objective evidence). Therefore the State Secretary finds it non credible that the applicant did genuinely larn out the territory of the European Union MS, fifty-fifty if ane should stimulate got the sentiment that the delivered documents are authentic.

The applicant declared that he made role of the visa on 18-12-2013, that he slept ane black inwards Paris in addition to and so returned to Iran. Then he travelled on 20-02-2014 illegally from Iran, through Turkey in addition to in conclusion arrived inwards the Netherlands somewhere only about 01-03-2014. The applicant declared that his passport alongside stamps is taken past times the Sepah-e Pasdaran-e Enqelab-e in addition to that he doesn’t stimulate got evidence to submit well-nigh his travel. The applicant emphasizes that he did non stimulate got troubles inwards Islamic Republic of Iran earlier in addition to that the problems firstly arose on 15-02-2014.

To underline the applicant resided inwards Islamic Republic of Iran later existence inwards France, he submitted the next documents:

-          A contestation from his employer;

-          A contestation from a physician;

-          A signed understanding on the sale of property. With regard to that the applicant states that it is dated on 10-01-2014 in addition to that he had to sign this understanding inwards person.

 

The preliminary questions are:

1. What is the extent of article 27 of Regulation 604/2013 [the right to an appeal], whether or non inwards conjunction alongside consideration xix of the Preamble of Regulation 604/2013?

Does an applicant, inwards a province of affairs similar this, where the applicant firstly later a claim-acceptance is confronted alongside the Dublin claim in addition to the applicant hence evidence submits later the claim-acceptance which could Pb to the determination that non the requested European Union MS but the requesting European Union MS is responsible for the application for international protection, in addition to that in addition to so the requesting European Union MS does non examine the submitted evidence nor submit it to the requested European Union MS, based on this article (thus art. 27) has a right to an (effective) remedy against the application of the criteria for determining the European Union MS responsible (mentioned inwards chapter III of Regulation 604/2013?

 

2. Is, inwards representative the applicant based on the Regulation 604/2013, in addition to likewise based on Regulation 343/2003, inwards regulation doesn’t stimulate got an appeal on the wrong application of determining the European Union MS responsible when the requested European Union MS has accepted the take-charge request, the sentiment of the State Secretary for Security in addition to Justice right that this starting bespeak entirely has an exception inwards household unit of measurement situations every bit mentioned inwards fine art vii of Regulation 604/2013, or could at that topographic point last other detail facts in addition to circumstances considerable on which an applicant tin appeal to an wrong application for determining the European Union MS responsible?
 

3. In representative the response on enquiry two is that likewise apart from family-situations other circumstances could Pb to the determination that an applicant tin appeal on the footing of an wrong application of the criteria for determining the European Union MS responsible, could that last the facts in addition to circumstances mentioned inwards consideration 12 of this judgment? [These are the documents mentioned inwards the summary of the case.]

 

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

 

 

 

 

Share this post