organization:state secretariat for migration

  • AIDA 2017 Update: Challenging access and strict Dublin procedures in France and Switzerland*

    The updated AIDA reports on Switzerland and France document the latest developments on access to the territory for those in need of protection, the asylum procedure, the Dublin system, reception conditions, detention and content of protection.

    France registered 100,412 asylum seekers with the Office for Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) in 2017, in addition to 41,500 asylum seekers placed under Dublin procedure. The situation of registration of asylum applications at the “single desks” of French Prefectures remains dire. In most areas, the Prefectures have been unable to register claims within the 3 working day deadline set by the law. To restore the 3-day time limit, the Minister of Interior published a Circular on 12 January 2018 which plans to increase the staff in Prefectures and OFII and to reorganise services.

    Switzerland, where the number of asylum seekers dropped to 18,088 last year, is proceeding with a restructuring of its asylum procedure which will enter into force in 2019. Ahead of this reform, State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) has confirmed the implementation of another pilot phase of the accelerated procedure in the federal centres of Boudry and Chevrilles.

    The two countries are among the main operators of the Dublin Regulation in Europe. France initiated 41,500 Dublin procedures to transfer people to other European countries, in addition to over 100,000 asylum seekers received throughout 2017. Switzerland issued 8,370 outgoing Dublin requests – “take charge” requests almost exclusively based on the documentation and entry criteria and “take back” requests – and implemented 2,297 transfers. The majority of procedures and transfers concerned Italy, followed by Germany and France.

    While authorities have taken strict measures to implement more transfers, courts have intervened to uphold legal safeguards in the operation of the Dublin system, particularly in relation to detention of asylum seekers awaiting a transfer. Following the Al Chodor ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the French Court of Cassation ruled that the detention of asylum seekers under the Dublin procedure is illegal due to the absence of legally defined criteria for a “significant risk of absconding”. In practice, however, even before the adoption of a new law defining those criteria, some Prefectures continued to order detention of asylum seekers under a Dublin procedure. For its part, the Swiss Federal Court ruled that the order of administrative detention pronounced by the canton of Zoug against an Afghan family whose three young children were simultaneously subject to a placement in a foster care, constituted a violation of the right to family life. In its judgment of 28 April 2017, the Federal Court recalled that such a measure is only admissible as an ultima ratio and after a thorough examination of other less coercive measures.

    https://www.ecre.org/aida-2017-update-challenging-access-and-strict-dublin-procedures-in-france-and
    #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Dublin #règlement_dublin #France #Suisse #comparaison
    Le #modèle_suisse se diffuse en France... sic
    ping @isskein

  • 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

  • Switzerland : Landmark ruling on the right of appeal against Dublin transfers brings court in line with 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 on the grounds that SEM had missed the three-month deadline for submitting a take-charge request to the German authorities making the SEM responsible for the examination of the family’s asylum requests.

    https://www.ecre.org/switzerland-landmark-ruling-on-the-right-of-appeal-against-dublin-transfers-br
    #jurisprudence #Dublin #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Règlement_dublin #renvois_dublin #Cour_de_justice_de_l'Union_européenne #CJUE #Suisse

    Ici pour lire le communiqué de presse du tribunal administratif fédéral suisse :
    https://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi2qf6O-erY