The unilateral suspension of the transfer of asylum seekers does not in itself justify the finding of systemic flaws in the Member State responsible for processing applications, ruled the Court of Justice of the European Union in a judgment delivered on Thursday 19 December (joined cases C-185/24 and C-189/24).
In Germany, two Syrian nationals are challenging the German authorities’ decision to consider their asylum application inadmissible and to order their removal to Italy. These authorities consider that, under the Dublin III Regulation (604/2013), Italy is the country responsible for processing the asylum application as the country of first entry for the two Syrians.
However, in two circulars sent to their national counterparts, the ‘Dublin’ unit of the Italian authorities asked the Member States to suspend transfers of asylum seekers to its territory, arguing that there were not enough reception places available, given the large number of migrants arriving.
In response to the German court’s request, the Court took the view that the fact that a Member State had unilaterally suspended the taking in of asylum seekers did not in itself justify a finding of systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and the conditions of reception of applicants for international protection.
According to the ‘Dublin III’ Regulation, two cumulative conditions are necessary to establish that it is impossible to transfer an asylum seeker to the Member State responsible, namely the existence of (1) ‘systemic flaws’ (2) ‘resulting in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment’ within the meaning of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 4).
Systemic flaws are flaws relating to the asylum procedure and the reception conditions applicable to applicants for international protection, which persist and are particularly serious.
It is the responsibility of the German court hearing an appeal against a transfer decision to assess whether the two cumulative conditions mentioned above have been met. This jurisdiction may take into account all available documents such as, where appropriate: - reports from international NGOs on the application of the Common European Asylum System in the Member State concerned; - documents issued by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR); - documents and information exchanged as part of the implementation of the Dublin III system.
To see the judgment of the Court of Justice, go to https://aeur.eu/f/ewh (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)