Case Law

Given the individual assurances received by the Finnish Immigration Service from the Greek authorities that the appellant will be accommodated in a reception center that meets the require-ments of the Reception Conditions Directive and will be informed of the asylum procedure, there are no grounds for considering that the transfer to Greece is contrary to, nor have there been any reasons why, the appellant's application should be dealt with in Finland under the discretionary clause in Article 17 of the Dublin Regulation.

13 November 2020 | Judicial Body: Finland: Supreme Administrative Court | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Countries: Afghanistan - Finland - Greece

The principal issues in the appeals concern the meaning and effect of Article 2(n) and Article 28 of Dublin III ("Article 2(n)" and "Article 28", respectively), which relate to the detention of an individual for the purpose of transfer to another Member State under that Regulation. Mr Hemmati and Mr Khalili also raise a distinct issue regarding whether Garnham J was right to hold that their detention was lawful by application of the usual principles of domestic law first adumbrated in Re Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704 and rehearsed in later authorities such as R (I) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 888 and Lumba v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] 1 AC 245 ("the Hardial Singh principles").

4 October 2018 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria - Bulgaria - Iran, Islamic Republic of - Iraq - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

whether MAS, who is lawfully present in the UK, is the brother of MS, an unaccompanied minor who has made an asylum application in France; whether the UK has a duty of investigation once it receives a take charge request and the scope of any such duty

19 July 2018 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Family reunification | Countries: Afghanistan - France - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

8 June 2018 | Judicial Body: Belgium: Conseil du Contentieux des Etrangers | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Reception - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Belgium - Greece - Palestine, State of

Article 26(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person must be interpreted as precluding a Member State that has submitted, to another Member State which it considers to be responsible for the examination of an application for international protection pursuant to the criteria laid down by that regulation, a request to take charge of or take back a person referred to in Article 18(1) of that regulation from adopting a transfer decision and notifying it to that person before the requested Member State has given its explicit or implicit agreement to that request.

31 May 2018 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: France - Germany - Iraq

situation in region and Kabul is likely to be qualified as situation of indiscriminate violence resulting from an internal armed conflict in light of subsidiary protection. In these conditions, the prefect had erred in applying the law by deciding that, instead of authorising to register the application in France, the applicant be transferred to Finland where this country had already rejected the asylum application, expelled and issue an entry ban against the applicant.

13 March 2018 | Judicial Body: France: Cour administrative | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Generalized violence - Internal armed conflict - Refoulement | Countries: Afghanistan - Finland - France