organization:federal administrative court of switzerland

  • ODAE romand | La Suisse doit respecter les délais Dublin conformément à la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne de justice
    https://asile.ch/2018/02/01/odae-romand-suisse-respecter-delais-dublin-conformement-a-jurisprudence-de-cou

    Dans un arrêt du 21 décembre 2017 (E-1998/2016), le TAF a admis le recours d’une famille irakienne renvoyée en Allemagne en application du Règlement Dublin. L’Allemagne avait certes accepté de les reprendre en charge, mais le SEM avait dépassé le délai de trois mois pour adresser la demande de réadmission à l’Allemagne. Ce grief a […]

    • Switzerland: Landmark ruling on asylum seekers’ right of appeal against Dublin III transfers brings Swiss court in line with CJEU practice

      The Federal Administrative Court of Switzerland (FAC) has departed from its previous case law concerning the right of asylum seekers to challenge the incorrect application of responsibility criteria under the Dublin III Regulation, thereby aligning the court’s practice with recent jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

      In a landmark ruling released on 12 January 2018, the FAC approved the appeal of an Iraqi family whose asylum application in Switzerland had been dismissed on the grounds that they had previously filed an application for asylum in Germany. The State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) had concluded that Germany was the State responsible for processing the application after receiving confirmation of acceptance from the German authorities. The family had lodged a complaint against this decision, asserting that the responsibility criteria set forth in the Dublin III Regulation had been incorrectly applied as the SEM had missed the three-month deadline for submitting a take-charge request to the German authorities. The SEM had thus become responsible for the examination of the family’s asylum requests, and could not return the family to Germany.

      The basis for this decision lay in the controversial question of the admissibility of appeals regarding the incorrect application of responsibility criteria in the Dublin III Regulation. Previously, the FAC had distinguished between directly applicable and indirectly applicable responsibility criteria, with complaints relating to the latter being dismissed outright because these criteria were technical in nature and did not affect the individual legal positions of asylum seekers.

      However, in its judgments in Ghezelbash and Karim, the CJEU concluded that the right to an effective remedy under Article 27(1) of the Dublin III Regulation covers an asylum seeker’s right to appeal against a transfer decision by pleading the incorrect application of one of the criteria for determining responsibility.

      The Swiss judges stated in their judgment that Switzerland is not, in principle, bound by the jurisprudence of the CJEU concerning the Dublin III Regulation. However, they added that all signatories to the Regulation are obliged to strive towards the uniform application and interpretation of the legislation. To this end, under established case-law, departures from CJEU practice may only be made if there are strong grounds for doing so. In this case, the FAC concluded that no such grounds existed.

      http://www.asylumineurope.org/news/15-01-2018/switzerland-landmark-ruling-asylum-seekers%E2%80%99-right-appeal-aga
      #Dublin #délais_dublin #suisse #jurisprudence

  • The Italian Council of State confirms its position on Bulgaria as a not safe country for the transfer of asylum seekers under the #Dublin Regulation.

    With the decision n. 5085 of the 3rd of November 2017, the highest administrative Italian court annulled the transfer to Bulgaria of an asylum seeker under 604/2013 Regulation, confirming its orientation as already expressed last year with several other pronunciations ( n. 3998/2016 Reg. Prov. Coll., n. 3999/2016 Reg. Prov. Coll., n. 4000/2016 Reg. Prov. Coll. and n. 4002/2016 Reg. Prov. Coll.).

    In this decision the Council of State affirmed that “there are no reliable elements that led us to believe that the condition of asylum seekers in Bulgaria can be considered respectful of fundamental human rights and can lead to a concrete risk of suffering inhuman and degrading treatments as foreseen in art. 3 par. 2 Reg. n. 604/2013”.

    This is particularly relevant if we think that the administrative judges went beyond the informations provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In fact, in the opinion of the Council of State, this informations “doesn’t provide enough convincing elements regarding the effective respect of the reception standards in order to avoid the doubt that, up to now, there are still systemic deficiencies in the asylum seekers reception system” in Bulgaria.

    This decision, that follows the legal precedents of the European Courts of Human Rights, reaffirms the fundamental principle that a judge must annul the transfer decree every time there is the reasonable doubt that in the outgoing country exists habitual infringement of human rights. According to these considerations, the highest administrative Italian court took in consideration the informations and data, used by the claimant during the appeal, gathered by the international N.G.O.’s and by the decisions of the European high courts.

    The Council of State, in the present case, confirmed that there were a risk of suffering inhuman and degrading treatments in the eventuality of a transfer of the claimant to Bulgaria and for this reason annulled the transfer decree.

    reçu via la mailing-list Migreurop, le 13.11.2017 (email de Lucia Gennari)
    #renvois_Dublin #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Bulgarie #pays_sûr #Italie

    • Consiglio di Stato : annullato il trasferimento di un richiedente asilo verso la Bulgaria

      Il Consiglio di Stato italiano conferma il proprio orientamento sulla Bulgaria quale Paese non sicuro ai fini del trasferimento di richiedenti protezione in applicazione del Regolamento Dublino.

      Con sentenza n. 5085 del 03 novembre 2017, la più alta Corte amministrativa italiana ha annullato il trasferimento verso la Bulgaria di un richiedente asilo ai sensi del Regolamento 604/2013, confermando, con tale pronuncia, il proprio orientamento già espresso lo scorso anno con le sentenze consecutive n. 3998/2016 Reg. Prov. Coll., n. 3999/2016 Reg. Prov. Coll., n. 4000/2016 Reg. Prov. Coll. e n. 4002/2016 Reg. Prov. Coll.

      Nella sentenza il Consiglio di Stato afferma che “non vi siano elementi affidabili per ritenere che le condizioni dei richiedenti asilo in Bulgaria offrano sicure garanzie di rispettare i diritti fondamentali dello straniero e siano tali da scongiurare il fondato rischio di trattamenti disumani e degradanti, siccome prevede l’art. 3, par. 2, del Reg. UE n. 604 del 2013”.

      Tale assunto risulta particolarmente rilevante anche alla luce del fatto che il Collegio va oltre le informazioni che erano state fornite dal Ministero degli Affari Esteri, su richiesta dello stesso Collegio. Secondo il Consiglio di Stato, infatti, tali informazioni “non forniscono elementi tali da rassicurare convincentemente circa l’effettivo raggiungimento di livelli di accoglienza tali da scongiurare il fondato dubbio che sussistano, a tutt’oggi, carenze sistemiche nelle condizioni di accoglienza dei richiedenti”.

      La sentenza, collocandosi nel solco della giurisprudenza della Corte Europea dei diritti dell’Uomo, afferma come a garanzia di incomprimibili diritti fondamentali dello straniero operi un principio di cautela tale per cui il giudice deve annullare il provvedimento di trasferimento di uno straniero tutte le volte che sussista il ragionevole dubbio che vi siano nel Paese di rinvio carenze sistemiche.

      In base a tali considerazioni, la più alta Corte amministrativa italiana ha ritenuto prevalenti le informazioni, evidenziate dalla difesa del ricorrente, diffuse da organizzazioni internazionali nonché le decisioni di altre alte Corti Europee sul punto.

      Il Consiglio di Stato, pertanto, ha ritenuto sussistente il rischio di trattamenti inumani e degradanti per il ricorrente qualora lo stesso dovesse essere rinviato in Bulgaria e per tale ragione ne ha annullato il relativo trasferimento.

      Per ulteriori informazioni sull’azione potete contattare l’avv. Loredana Leo, 3470339581/avv.loredanaleo@gmail.com

      https://www.asgi.it/asilo-e-protezione-internazionale/bulgaria-asilo-trasferimento

    • Italy: Council of State suspends a Dublin transfer to Bulgaria due to deficiencies in the Bulgarian asylum system

      On 3 November 2017, the Italian Council of State suspended (https://www.asgi.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Bulgaria-Paese-non-sicuro-ottobre-2017.pdf) the Dublin transfer of an Afghan national from Italy to Bulgaria. The applicant had previously appealed against the transfer decision before the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio, without success. In March 2016, the Council of State granted suspensive effect to the appeal and instructed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to provide a report on the conditions faced by asylum seekers in Bulgaria, which was submitted in April 2017.

      The Council of State found, contrary to the lower’s court interpretation, that nothing in the documents submitted before it allowed the Council of State to be fully reassured that the conditions faced by asylum seekers in Bulgaria would not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Council acknowledged the substantial improvements in the Bulgarian asylum system in the recent months, but stated that recent reports still point to poor reception and integration conditions. The Council also relied on decisions from other national courts, such as the Administrative Court of Appeal of Bordeaux (case no.16BX03424), the Federal Administrative Court of Switzerland (case no. E-305/2017) and the Constitutional Court of Austria (case no. 484/2017), which all recognised the existence of serious deficiencies in the Bulgarian asylum system in the context of a Dublin transfer. Therefore, the Council of State quashed the transfer decision to Bulgaria.

      Based on an unofficial translation by the ELENA Weekly Legal Update. We would like to thank Loredana Leo and ASGI for bringing this case to our attention. A summary of the decision can be found in Italian here.

      https://us1.campaign-archive.com/?u=8e3ebd297b1510becc6d6d690&id=7e017ec4b3#8