ECJ: Advocate General considers that EU border states cannot be responsible for all asylum applications in context of mass arrivals
Follow us: | | Tweet
"[The Advocate General] reiterates the unprecedented inflow of persons into the Western Balkans and the fact that no bespoke criterion was inserted into the Dublin III Regulation to cover that situation. In the Advocate Generals opinion, if border Member States, such as Croatia, are deemed to be responsible for accepting and processing exceptionally high numbers of asylum seekers, there is a real risk that they will simply be unable to cope with the situation. This in turn could place Member States in a position where they are unable to comply with their obligations under EU and international law.
Accordingly, in view of the Regulations aim to allocate responsibility clearly among Member States for the examination of applications for international protection, and the fact that in neither case has the Member State in which the applications were lodged assumed voluntary responsibility, those applications should be examined by the first Member State in which those applications are lodged, as provided in Article 3(2) of the Dublin III Regulation.
The Advocate General concludes that Slovenia is the Member State responsible for examining Mr A.S.s application for international protection and Austria is the Member State responsible for examining the Jafari families applications."
The opinion concerns two cases: one of a Syrian national who applied for asylum in Slovenia after travelling via the Balkan Route and arriving in Croatia, where the authorities allowed him to move on to Slovenia; and another of an Afghan family who applied for asylum after entering the EU first via Greece and then, after travelling along the Balkan Route, via Croatia.
See: Press release (pdf) and: Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in cases C-490/16 (A.S. v Republic of Slovenia) and C-646/16 (Jafari) (pdf)
See also: Countries have to examine all refugees applications: EU Court smashes the irregular crossing provision in the Dublin III Regulation (New Europe, link):
"In the exceptional circumstances of the refugee crisis, the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Eleanor Sharpston, decided today that the EU member states in which applications for international protection were first lodged are responsible for examining those applications The words irregular crossing in the Dublin III Regulation do not cover a situation where, as a result of the mass inflow of people into border Member States, those countries allowed third- country nationals to enter and transit through their territory in order to reach other Member States."
Search our database for more articles and information or subscribe to our mailing list for regular updates from Statewatch News Online.
Did you find this article useful?
Support our work by making a one-off or regular donation to help us continue to monitor the state and civil liberties in Europe.
We welcome contributions to News Online and comments on this website. E-mail us or send post to Statewatch c/o May Day Rooms, 88 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1DH, UK.
Home | News Online | Journal | Observatories | Analyses | Database | SEMDOC | About Statewatch
© Statewatch ISSN 1756-851X. Personal usage as private individuals/"fair dealing" is allowed. We also welcome links to material on our site. Usage by those working for organisations is allowed only if the organisation holds an appropriate licence from the relevant reprographic rights organisation (eg: Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK) with such usage being subject to the terms and conditions of that licence and to local copyright law.