1. Establishment of the Common European Asylum System
Gazdag Anna
April 7, 2015

2. Establishment of the Common European Asylum System – The Dublin Agreement and the Phenomena of Secondary Migration and „Forum Shopping”
The Dublin Convention (1999)
Dublin II Regulation (2003)
Revised Dublin Regulation (2013)

3. The 1990 Dublin Convention: A Comprehensive Assessment
Principles:
preventing the lodging of simultaneous or consecutive asylum applications in the Member States
end the phenomena of ‘refugee in orbit’

4. Scope of the Convention
applicantion for asylum: ‘request whereby an alien seeks from a Member State protection under the Geneva Convention by claiming refugee status within the meaning of article 1 of the Geneva Convention as amanded by the New York protocol’
no ad hoc protection
if application for refugee status is rejected the administrative authority may still decide to grant humanitarian protection (problem: Netherlands)

5. The state responsible - Criteria
order of precedence, except: presence of a family member with refugee status
valid residence permit or visa issued by a M.S.
frontier of the State the applicant irregularly crossed
M.S. responsible for controlling the entry of the alien into the territory of the M.S.
first M.S. with which the application for asylum was lodged
M.S. is allowed to examin the application even if not responsible

6. The state responsible -Derogations
M.S. state in which the application for asylum was lodged may decide to examine the application on it’s own initiative even when it’s not responsible (opt out clause)
M.S. may request and other M.S. to examine an application for asylum for humanitarian reasons based on family or cultural grounds even when the latter is not responsible

7. Pocedure - Transfer to the Responsible State
within 6 months (from the introduction of the asylum claim)
request must contain indications enabling the authorities of the requested State to determine whether it is responsible
asylum seeker is to be informed
decision should be send within one month of the receipt of the request and shouldn’t exceed three months as indicated in article 11.4 DC.

8. the responsible State is also obligated to readmit the asylum seeker who has withdrawn his/her application and lodged an application in another M.S who has been found irregularly in another M.S. while the application is still under consideration or - whose application has been rejected
answer must be given within 8 days
if the State acknowledges responsibility, it agrees to do so at least one month after it

9. these obligations cease to apply if
the asylum seeker has left the terrritory of the M.S. for at least 3 months
the State responsible, following the withdrawal or the rejection of the application has taken and enforced measures to return the alien to his/her country of origin or to another country which he/she may lawfully enter

10. Rules of evidence two lists of proof:
list A - means of proof of clear evidence of responsibility of the M.S., rebutted by contrary evidence
list B - means of proof, with a merely indicative value, of responsibility of M.S. based on relevance and consistency of these indications in each individual case

11. Identification of asylum seeker
asylum seekers often hide their name and country of origin
asylum seeker has the right to request and receive the information exchanged on his/her case
most efficient way to identify: finger prints

12. Assesment of the operation of the Convention
overall record of applications of the Convention are not convincing, statistics show it’s limited impact
1 September December 1998
request for transfer submitted by M.S. was 6.9% of the total number of asylum applications lodged in the EU M.S.
only 58.7 % of these requests were accepted

13. Dublin Regulation II. Asylum in Greece
Transit country - most refugees don’t stay long
in less than a decade more than immigrants

14. Dublin system - allocating responsibility
after the Amsterdam Treaty M.S. committed themselves to creat an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice within the territory of the Union
after the extraordinary summit in Tampere (1999) they decided to adopt a number of specific legislative measures on asylum
new legal instrument: Council Regulation (replaced the Dublin Convention)
what underpinned the Dublin Convention: peripheric countries have to bear the burden of examining a disproportionate number of asylum applications

15. Eurodac system 2003
Effects: requests to take charge or take back on the basis of the Dublin Convention and later the Regulation increased
effective transfers also increased
first period: 291 requests were accepted
secound period: 608 requests were accepted

16. Interruption of the examination of an asylum application
increase return of asylum applicants -» since the begining of 2004 the authorities in greece interrupt the examination of the asylum application on the ground of Regulation 343/2003
as a result: the applicant loses the asylum seeker status, consequently: present in Greece illegally
Greek authorities are informed that the person is in another M.S., taking the person back doesn’t run contrary to either the Regulation or Greek legislation
when the former asylum seeker returns to Greece he/she can only remain if the decision was revoked

17. Revised Dublin Regulation (2013)
3 December 2008 the European Commission proposed amandments to the Dublin Regulation - was approved in 2013 replacing the Dublin II.
applies to all member states except Denmark
preserved the basic principles of the Dublin Convention and Dublin II.

18. Principles
State where the asylum seeker arrived first is the competent authority
responsible State has to be nominated within 11 months and responsible states have to take back designated people (Dubliners) within 9 months
The country of entry has the sole prerogative not only to grant refugee protection but also any sort of subsidiary protection
Dublin transfers can no longer be hindered by a new application for temporary protection in the sending member state

19. Further principles
the asylum seeker has now the right to be heard in a personal interview where the person can invoke legitimate grounds against any transfer, such as claiming family ties in the country of residence (Humanitarian clause)
for minors the responsibility definitely lays with the state where their family lives, in their absence the country of residence is in charge of them
the sending member state has to inform the party concerned in a timely manner about all the implications of the planned Dublin transfer

20. Further principles
the sending member state needs to provide the right to lodge an appeal with suspensive effect, guaranteeing the right to remain pending the court’s decision, setting tight or loose
applicants are better protected against arbitrary detention, henceforth, only the severe risk of absconding can justify arrest
an early warning mechanism is established to detect and solve root causes for disruptive national asylum systems facing particularly severe migratory pressures

21. References Dublin Convention (1999)
e/briefing/2013/130546/LDM_BRI(2013)130546_R EV1_EN.pdf
The new ‘Dubliners’: Implementation of European Council Regulation 343/2003 (Dublin II) by the Greek Authorities
common-european-asylum-system-plus-dublin-iii
Stuck in Transit Secondary Migration (2014)