Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003 (Dublin II)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
European Union flag

Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003

Title: Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 laying down the criteria and procedures for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national
Designation:
(not official) 		Dublin II regulation
Scope: EEA
Legal matter: Asylum law , administrative law
Basis: TFEU , in particular Art. 78 para. 2 lit. c
Procedure overview: European Commission
European Parliament
IPEX Wiki
To be used from: March 17, 2003
Replaced by: Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013
Expiry: 18th July 2013
Reference: OJ L 50 of 25.2.2003, pp. 1-10
Full text Consolidated version (not official)
basic version
Regulation has expired.
Please note the information on the current version of legal acts of the European Union !

The 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the signatory state, for examining an Regulation (EC) No. Third-country nationals is responsible asylum lodged in a signatory state , is a regulation of the European Union according to which the Member State responsible for carrying out an asylum procedure is determined. The regulation was published in the Official Journal of the EG L 50/01 on February 25, 2003. It came into force in March 2003 and replaced the Dublin Convention as part of the Common European Asylum System , which is why it is briefly referred to as the Dublin II Regulation .

The Dublin III Regulation has been in force since July 19, 2013 .

scope

When the regulation was adopted, Denmark was initially granted certain reservations and exemptions, which the country abandoned in 2006. The Dublin II Regulation therefore now applies in all Member States. The non-EU states Norway, Iceland and Switzerland have also signed up to the asylum system regulated by the Dublin II Regulation.

content

The following important information is still missing in the following section:
The difference to Dublin I is missing: What has changed?
Help Wikipedia by researching and pasting it .

The regulation regulates which member state is responsible for an asylum application made within the scope of application. This is to ensure that an asylum seeker can only pursue one asylum procedure within the member states. Which state is responsible for carrying out the asylum procedure is determined by the criteria specified in the ordinance. If the asylum seeker nevertheless applies for asylum in another member state, the asylum procedure will no longer be carried out and the asylum seeker will be transferred to the responsible state. The backbone of the Dublin II Regulation is the European database EURODAC , which provides the asylum authorities with information on whether the applicant in question has already applied for asylum in another Member State and / or when and where he illegally accessed the external borders of the Has exceeded the scope of the regulation.

The criteria for determining responsibility essentially follow the basic idea that the Member State that initiated or did not prevent entry should be responsible for carrying out the asylum procedure. According to this, a state is responsible if the asylum seeker has entered the scope of the Dublin II Regulation with a visa issued by this state or if he has entered illegally across the borders of a member state. However, humanitarian aspects are also taken into account, which are primarily reflected in the principle of family unity: For example, if members of a family travel into the scope of the Dublin II Regulation via different routes, their asylum applications are nevertheless dealt with jointly in a certain state.

Asylum application within the meaning of this jurisdiction regulation is any request for international protection in a member state that can be regarded as a protection request according to the provisions of the Convention on the Status of Refugees ("Geneva Refugee Convention") (Art. 2c Dublin II Regulation) In Germany, the application for asylum under Article 16a, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law is included, as is the application for refugee status in accordance with Section 60, Paragraph 1 of the Residence Act .

criticism

Occasionally, the Dublin II Regulation is criticized as the implementation of what is considered to be a restrictive attitude by the signatory states towards asylum seekers. The states at the EU's external borders strictly control these borders, because otherwise they would be responsible for all subsequent asylum procedures and the associated costs. Often migrants still try to cross borders; not infrequently dependent on professional smugglers .

Germany

Critics of the German practice also refer to the course of the Dublin procedure before the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees , which prepares the transfer of the asylum seeker to another European country, often without notifying the person concerned, and the deportation of the person concerned in application of § 34a para 1 AsylVfG (today's name: AsylG ) can be carried out without prior warning.

The Dublin II regulation is also under discussion because of the fact that asylum and social standards are not equally met in all countries. That was the case with Greece in the recent past , i.e. when asylum seekers were to be transferred to Greece on the basis of the Dublin II regulation. In view of the large amount of information that asylum seekers in Greece are not granted access to a regulated asylum procedure and care that meets European social standards, transfers from Germany to Greece have been suspended by some administrative courts since 2008. Finally, the Federal Constitutional Court temporarily suspended transfers to Greece, beginning with a decision on September 8, 2009. The Federal Constitutional Court did not come to a decision on the main issue, however, because the Federal Ministry of the Interior has meanwhile declared that all asylum applications made in Germany, which according to the Dublin II Regulation would actually have to be processed in Greece, by January 18, 2012 to take over. Any state can take over the asylum procedure in this way by means of so-called self-entry, provided that an asylum application has been submitted to it (Art. 3 (2) Dublin II Regulation).

In the meantime, the German administrative courts also have reservations with regard to other Dublin states: In November 2010, for the first time, an administrative court suspended the transfer of a refugee to Italy on the grounds of insufficient social standards . The circumstances under which even recognized refugees are accommodated and cared for in Italy are documented in a report published by Pro Asyl . The Baden-Württemberg Administrative Court also suspended the agreement in July 2016 by prohibiting the Federal Republic from repatriating a Syrian to Hungary and stating that the man would face "inhuman and degrading treatment" when applying for asylum there.

Judgment of the ECHR

The judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights of January 21, 2011 is of great importance for the Dublin II Regulation . The case concerned the deportation of an Afghan national from Belgium who had applied for asylum there. The Belgian immigration office ordered the applicant to be transferred to Greece, where he could apply for asylum. The Court regarded the transfer of the applicant from Belgium to Greece due to the deficiencies in the asylum system there as “degrading and inhumane treatment” within the meaning of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). At the same time Greece was condemned for the detention and living conditions there for asylum seekers (violation of Article 13 ECHR, “right to an effective complaint”).

See also

literature

  • Christian Filzwieser, Andrea Sprung: Dublin II regulation. The European asylum jurisdiction system . Neuer Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, 3rd edition 2009, ISBN 978-3-7083-0649-0 .

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Decision 2006/188 / EC of the Council of February 21, 2006 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark to extend to Denmark Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003 laying down the criteria and procedures for Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national
  2. ^ Documents from PRO ASYL eV on the situation in Greece .
  3. ^ Evidence of case law in: Ruth Weinzierl: The Asylum Compromise 1993 on the test stand. (PDF; 544 kB) Berlin 2009, p. 27ff.
  4. ^ Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of September 8, 2009.
  5. ↑ Press release of the Federal Ministry of the Interior of January 19, 2011 ( Memento of October 30, 2014 in the Internet Archive )
  6. ↑ Press release No. 6/2011 of the BVerfG from January 26, 2011 , accessed on June 16, 2011.
  7. ↑ Order of the Darmstadt Administrative Court of November 9, 2010 (PDF; 156 kB)
  8. ↑ Dominik Bender, Maria Bethke: On the situation of refugees in Italy. (PDF; 5.4 MB) Frankfurt 2011.
  9. ↑ "German court forbade deportation to Hungary" Standard.at of July 18, 2016.
  10. ↑ ECHR, judgment of 21 January 2011, MSS v Belgium and Greece (complaint no. 30696/09).
  11. ↑ European Court of Human Rights prohibits deportations to Greece. In: Der Standard.at. Retrieved January 21, 2011.
  12. ↑ 2nd edition 2006, ISBN 978-3-7083-0421-2 .