Brussels, 06/06/2013 (Agence Europe) - The member states responsible for examining an asylum application made in more than one member state by an unaccompanied minor is the state in which the minor is present after lodging an application there. Nonetheless, there must be no member of the minor's family legally present in another member state.
In its ruling of 6 June (case C-648/11), the Court of Justice of the EU interprets the Dublin II regulation on this point (EC No343/2003 - criteria and mechanism for determining the member states responsible for examining asylum applications of third country nationals), further to a request from the United Kingdom court of appeal. The regulation provides that, when the request for asylum comes from an unaccompanied minor, the member state responsible for processing that request is the one in which a member of the minor's family is legally to be found, as long as it is in the interest of the minor. If there is no member of the family, the member state responsible for processing the request is that in which the minor lodged his asylum application. However, in the event of successive requests filed in several member states, the regulation does not specify whether it is the first request field by the minor in a member state or that filed last in another member state. Given that each member state can, of its own initiative, examine the application made for asylum (principle of sovereignty), even if it is not up to that state under the regulation, the question is that of knowing whether the results arising from the examination are imperative under the regulation. The British court asked for these points to be clarified.
In its ruling, the Court declares that, when an unaccompanied minor without any member of the family legally residing on a territory of the European Union, has filed asylum claims in more than one member state, the member state responsible for examination of the application will be that where the minor is currently to be found after having submitted his/her application. That conclusion, the Court states, arises from the context and objective of the regulation which seeks to guarantee effective access to an assessment of the asylum applicant's refugee status, while focusing particularly on unaccompanied minors. Thus, since unaccompanied minors form a category of particularly vulnerable persons, it is important not to prolong more than is strictly necessary the procedure for determining the member state responsible, which means that, as a rule, unaccompanied minors should not be transferred to another member state. However, a state cannot be compelled by the minor in question to examine the application for asylum when an identical request has been refused by another member state, the Court says. (FG/transl.jl)