In a decision made on Wednesday 26 July (C-670/16), the European Court of Justice argued that an asylum seeker can contest the decision of a member state to transfer him to another member state on the grounds that the request to take charge of him sent by the first member state was not made within the timetable agreed under the terms of the so-called Dublin III regulation (604/2013).
Mr Tsegezab Mengesteab, an Eritrean national entered the European Union from Libya by way of Italy on 4 September 2015 and arrived in Germany on 12 September 2015 by land. Two days later, the authorities from the Bavarian regional government officially registered his request for informal asylum. On 14 January 2016, the Bundesamt (German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees), responsible for examining application for international protection, received the original of that certificate. On 22 July 2016, Mr Mengesteab was heard by the Bundesamt and was able to lodge an official application for asylum in Germany. On 19 August 2016, however, it was revealed by the Eurodac system that Mr Mengesteab’s fingerprints had been taken in Italy and on 10 November 2016, the BAMF rejected the asylum request from the Eritrean national and ordered his transfer to Italy on the grounds that it was up to the Italian authorities to examine deciding request from Mr Mengesteab.
In this fast-tracked case, the Court accepted the grounds provided by Advocate General Sharpston and considered that an asylum seeker can contest the decision to transfer him by invoking non-respect of the deadlines stipulated in the procedure for granting asylum in regulation 604/2013 or 'Dublin III' (EUROPE 11812).
The European Court points out that a request to be taken into charge cannot be formulated three months after the introduction of a request for asylum. The two month deadline included in the Dublin III regulation in the event of a positive result following the consultation of the Eurodac database does not constitute an additional deadline but a shorter one.
Formal submission of a request for asylum. On the other hand, the European Court of Justice contradicts the Advocate General on the grounds that a request for asylum is supposed to be introduced as soon as a written document established by a public authority registering that a third country national has requested international protection has reached the competent authority, in this case, the BAMF in Germany. It is not necessary that this written document takes a particular form or includes all the relevant elements for examining the basic request.
Ms Sharpston considered, on the contrary, that the same request from Mr Mengesteab was not officially submitted until 14 July 2016, when this individual was given hearing by BAMF.
In this specific case, the date upon which the three-month deadline began is 14 January 2016, according to the European Court of Justice. The German authorities should therefore have ordered the transfer of Mr Mengesteab by 14 April 2016 the latest. (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)