In his Opinion delivered on Wednesday 13 June in Case C-213/17, Advocate General Yves Bot holds that in an effort to streamline and speed up procedures, it is possible that in the event of multiple applications for asylum, exemptions are permitted to European rules when deciding which member state is in charge of conducting the application procedure.
A Pakistani national introduced two requests for international protection that were rejected. The second request is the subject of an ongoing appeals procedure.
This individual was suspected of having committed a sexual assault and fled to Italy where he submitted a third request for asylum. Given that this Pakistani national had already requested international protection in the Netherlands, Italy was able to request that the Dutch authorities resume responsibility for this case but this approach was not undertaken within the expected deadlines. The Italian authorities then handed over the person in question to their Dutch counterparts after the latter issued an arrest warrant against him.
One month later, the Netherlands called on Italy to resume responsibility for the Pakistani national on the grounds that Italy was responsible for examining the third request for asylum. Italy did not agree to taking responsibility for this individual. The asylum seeker subsequently took the matter to the Dutch courts to oppose his transfer to Italy on the grounds that the latter was not responsible for examining his third request for asylum.
In his Opinion, the Advocate General finds in favour of the Pakistani national.
According to Mr Bot, Italy failed to request that the Netherlands take charge of the asylum seeker within the given deadline stipulated by the 'Dublin III' (604/2013) regulation and it should therefore be responsible for examining the third request for asylum made on its territory, irrespective of the existence in the Netherlands of an ongoing appeals procedure as part of the second application for asylum.
Nonetheless, in such a specific situation and with the purposes of reliable cooperation between the member states that it involves, the Advocate General holds that the rules included in European legislation in this connection can be exempted. He emphasises that the aim of the 'Dublin III' is to streamline and speed up asylum request procedures. Therefore, the member state responsible for processing the asylum request submitted in Italy should be the one that is best place to do so, namely, the Netherlands, so Italy should therefore not resume responsibility for the Pakistani national.
The reasons Mr Bot cites include the fact that: - the Dutch authorities have already processed the two first requests for asylum; the Dutch court has been approached to interpret an ongoing appeal procedure concerning the second application; and a European arrest warrant had been issued by the Netherlands against the asylum seeker. (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)