Case Law

Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in conjunction with Article 2(q) thereof and Article 2 of Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark annexed to the EU Treaty and to the FEU Treaty, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State other than the Kingdom of Denmark which provides for the possibility of rejecting as inadmissible, in whole or in part, an application for international protection within the meaning of Article 2(b) of that directive, which has been made to that Member State by a national of a third country or a stateless person whose previous application for international protection, made to the Kingdom of Denmark, has been rejected by the latter Member State.

22 September 2022 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Decision on admissibility - International protection - Safe third country | Countries: Denmark - Georgia - Germany

The Applicants challenge the validity and the constitutionality of the legislation implementing the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America For Cooperation in the Examination of Refugee Status Claims from Nationals of Third Countries (referred to as the “Safe Third Country Agreement” or “STCA”). The Applicants allege that by returning ineligible refugee claimants to the United States (US), Canada exposes them to risks in the form of detention, refoulement, and other violations of their rights contrary to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS at 137 (Refugee Convention or RT) and contrary to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT, collectively referred to as the Conventions).

22 July 2020 | Judicial Body: Canada: Federal Court | Topic(s): Safe third country | Countries: Canada - United States of America

The Court found in particular that the Hungarian authorities had failed in their duty under Article 3 to assess the risks of the applicants not having proper access to asylum proceedings in Serbia or being subjected to chain-refoulement, which could have seen them being sent to Greece, where conditions in refugee camps had already been found to be in violation of Article 3. In a development of its case-law, it held that Article 5 was not applicable to the applicants’ case as there had been no de facto deprivation of liberty in the transit zone. Among other things, the Court found that the applicants had entered the transit zone of their own initiative and it had been possible in practice for them to return to Serbia, where they had not faced any danger to their life or health. Their fears of a lack of access to Serbia’s asylum system or of refoulement to Greece, as expressed under Article 3, had not been enough to make their stay in the transit zone involuntary.

21 November 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Rejection at border - Right to liberty and security - Safe third country - Transit | Countries: Bangladesh - Greece - Hungary - North Macedonia - Serbia - Türkiye

14 November 2019 | Judicial Body: Ireland: High Court | Topic(s): Effective remedy - Safe country of origin - Safe third country - Secondary movement | Countries: Albania - Ireland

Leading case concerning family reunification and safe third country: The appellant was recognized as refugee in Italy on 16 November 2009 He went to Switzerland for family reunification. The fact that a person has already been granted protection as a refugee and asylum in another Dublin State constitutes a "special circumstance" within the meaning of Art. 51 para. 1 of the Swiss Asylum Law which precludes the granting of family asylum.

25 September 2019 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Topic(s): Family reunification - Refugee / Asylum law - Safe third country | Countries: Eritrea - Switzerland

"Expedientes Acumulados 3829-2019, 3849-2019 y 3881-2019". Appeal of this earlier decision by the constitutional court. The Court found that the signing of the "safe third country" agreement between the United States and Guatemala did not violate Guatemalan law, as the President and the Foreign Relations Minister stated they would comply with the internal legal procedure and formal steps for the agreement to become a treaty and enter into force, including approval by congress.

9 September 2019 | Judicial Body: Guatemala: Corte de Constitutionalidad | Topic(s): Safe third country | Countries: Guatemala - United States of America

19 August 2019 | Judicial Body: Canada: Federal Court of Appeal | Topic(s): Appeal / Right to appeal - Family reunification - Refoulement - Safe third country | Countries: Bangladesh - Canada - Colombia - Jordan - Syrian Arab Republic - United States of America

"Expedientes Acumulados 3829-2019, 3849-2019 y 3881-2019". Constitutional Court decision reviewing the constitutionality of the "safe third country" agreement between the United States and Guatemala. The court found, on procedural grounds, that the agreement did not comply with the treaty-making procedures in Guatemalan law. However, this was later overturned on appeal (See the appeal here.)

14 July 2019 | Judicial Body: Guatemala: Corte de Constitutionalidad | Topic(s): Safe third country | Countries: Guatemala - United States of America

A Kurdish journalist applied for asylum upon her arrival at Zurich Airport. The State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) decided that the application was not admissible in the airport procedure based on the safe third country principle. The SEM considered that the conditions for a safe return to Brazil, where the journalist had been prior to her arrival in Switzerland, were present. The Court held that SEM needs to examine whether Brazil is safe in the particular case of the applicant. Unlike the third countries listed as “safe countries” by the Federal Council, the asylum authorities must take into consideration the characteristics for each individual case to decide whether the third country offers a sufficient protection against refoulement.

8 February 2018 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Topic(s): Safe third country | Countries: Brazil - Switzerland