Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 (Dublin III)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
European Union flag

Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013

Title: Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down the criteria and procedures for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in a Member State by a third-country national or stateless person is
Designation:
(not official) 		Dublin III regulation
Scope: EU and Iceland , Norway , Liechtenstein and Switzerland
Legal matter: Asylum law , administrative law
Basis: TFEU , in particular Art. 78 para. 2 lit. e
Procedure overview: European Commission
European Parliament
IPEX Wiki
To be used from: 1st of January 2014
Reference: OJ L 180 of June 29, 2013, pp. 31-59
Full text Consolidated version (not official)
basic version
Regulation has entered into force and is applicable.
Please note the information on the current version of legal acts of the European Union !

The Regulation (EU) no. 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an a third-country nationals lodged or stateless persons in a Member State for international protection is responsible is a regulation of the European Union , according to which the member state is determined, which is responsible for the implementation of an asylum procedure . The regulation replaces the Dublin II regulation within the framework of the Common European Asylum System and is also known as the Dublin III regulation . It came into force on July 19, 2013 and is applicable to applications for international protection filed after January 1, 2014.

scope

The regulation applies in the member states of the European Union, Norway , Iceland , Switzerland and Liechtenstein .

content

The Dublin procedure is a jurisdiction procedure that precedes the actual examination of the asylum application. The aim of the Dublin Regulation is that every asylum application made in one of the participating countries is only examined by one country. The scope of the Dublin procedure regulated by this regulation extends to all refugees seeking international protection. The efficiency of asylum procedures and the legal guarantees for asylum seekers are to be strengthened by the new regulation.

According to the Dublin procedure, the country is obliged to conduct the asylum procedure in which the asylum seeker enters the EU borders for the first time. If this check shows that another Dublin state is responsible for the asylum application, this state will be asked to take over the asylum seeker. The Dublin Regulation defines a test sequence according to which the responsible state is to be determined. Particular attention is paid to the protection of the child's best interests and family unity. If family members are already living in a Dublin state, this state is responsible in the case of unaccompanied minors, provided this is in the best interests of the child. In the case of adult asylum seekers, the state in which there are close relatives who are in the asylum procedure or who have already been granted protection is responsible if the person concerned so wishes. Article 17 of the Dublin Regulation provides for a right of self-entry , according to which a Dublin state can declare itself responsible for an asylum procedure even though it would not be responsible per se.

Comparison with Dublin II

Compared to the Dublin II Regulation, the Dublin III Regulation takes into account fundamental judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

Like the Dublin II Regulation, Dublin III provides for detention for the purpose of transfer to the responsible state. With regard to the conditions of detention and the guarantees for persons in detention, Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Reception Directive (Art. 28 (4) Dublin III Regulation) apply in order to safeguard the procedures for transfer to the responsible Member State .

One of the differences to the Dublin II Regulation is that the EURODAC system , in which the fingerprints of asylum seekers are stored, is supplied with additional data. In addition, the police and other security authorities now have access to the stored data.

consequences

By maintaining the Dublin procedure and extending it to all persons seeking international protection, the southern EU states (particularly Malta, Italy, Spain and Greece, see also Immigration to the EU via the Mediterranean ) and Hungary ( see also Balkan Route ) imposes a greater obligation with regard to registration and initial reception than northern countries. Germany refused to introduce a solidarity mechanism in 2013.

During the debate on the reform of the Dublin II Regulation, it was pointed out that if the asylum system of a member state were overloaded, the transfer of refugees there would become problematic. The EU Commission had proposed to suspend the transfer of asylum seekers to this state in cases of overload in the responsible member state. However, this proposal was rejected; Instead, the EU interior ministers decided in January 2012 (i.e. before the Dublin III regulation) to introduce an early warning mechanism that should provide early warning of an overload of individual national asylum systems and also to develop precautionary capacities with regard to asylum crises.

After Germany became one of the main countries of refuge and the number of refugees there increased sharply, the German interior minister raised - without questioning the Dublin procedure as such - in April 2015 the demand for Europe-wide standards for the accommodation of refugees, an equalization of the recognition rates, " politically agreed criteria for repatriation ”and for a more equitable distribution of asylum seekers in Europe. In August 2015, the demand for an adequate reception and fair distribution of refugees in Europe was repeated. At the same time, it became known that Germany was no longer transferring Syrians to the countries that actually had to process the asylum application, but was making use of the right of entry under Article 17 of the Dublin III Regulation and was now processing the asylum application itself.

Procedural problems

In 2017, Austrian authorities complained that, should a Dublin procedure be initiated, for example because people were apprehended who are recorded in the EURODAC database as asylum seekers in another EU country, the duration of such a procedure would be several weeks. The arrested people may only be held for 72 hours. The majority of people settle down after their release, before the Dublin procedure is completed.

The Advocate General of the European Court of Justice, Eleanor Sharpston , explained in connection with the consequences of the refugee crisis in Europe in 2015 that the regulation does not provide for the “exceptional circumstances of a mass influx” and could put the states at European external borders in a position “in which they cannot would be able to meet their obligations under Union and international law ”. Asylum applications made during the refugee crisis should therefore be processed in the country in which they were first made - in deviation from the Dublin III requirements. If Member States at the EU's external borders had allowed refugees to cross the country, there would be no “illegal border crossing” within the meaning of the Dublin III Regulation if the refugees traveled from there to another EU state.

On July 26, 2017, the ECJ confirmed that an asylum seeker had to submit his asylum application in the EU state where he first entered the EU. The first border crossing would not be legal due to an arbitrary tolerance. Nevertheless, according to European lawyer Daniel Thym, the people who immigrated to Northern Europe during the refugee crisis in 2015 and 2016 could not be sent back to other European countries because this should have happened within three months of their arrival.

In particular, the regulation says: "An application made after a deportation has been completed is considered a new application that triggers a new procedure to determine the responsible Member State." The newspaper Die Welt reported that migrants who have already been deported have to go through a complete deportation procedure again when they return.

See also

Web links

literature

  • ( Legal commentary ): Christian Filzwieser, Andrea Sprung: Dublin III regulation: The European system of asylum jurisdiction Status: February 1, 2014, BWV, ISBN 978-3-8305-3352-8 .

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Federal Office for Migration and Refugees: Examination of the Dublin procedure , accessed on January 25, 2020.
  2. ↑ cf. No. 10, 11 of the preamble and Article 3 of the regulation
  3. ↑ Note: See e.g. B. Decision letter 9/2013 of the BAMF, quote: "The regulation no longer only applies to the granting of refugee status , but to international protection as a whole, ie also to subsidiary protection."
  4. ↑ Note: In individual cases, Dublin II was not applied to people who restricted their application for subsidiary protection, see e.g. B. VG Augsburg, judgment of June 18, 2013, Az. Au 5 K 11.30477
  5. ↑ Note: Even before Dublin III, the Dublin procedure in Germany was possibly also applied to people who restricted their application for subsidiary protection, see e.g. B. VG Frankfurt am Main, decision of November 26, 2012, Az. 2 L 4168 / 12.FA
  6. ↑ Federal Government | What is the "Dublin Procedure"? Retrieved July 29, 2018 .
  7. ↑ Dublin procedure. UNHCR Germany, accessed October 31, 2018 .
  8. ↑ European Parliament passes so-called asylum package. In: press release. Pro Asyl, June 12, 2013, accessed October 27, 2013 .
  9. ↑ EU asylum package: revision of the asylum guidelines and regulations. First assessments by PRO ASYL. (PDF; 159 kB) June 12, 2013, accessed on October 27, 2013 .
  10. ↑ A patchwork of refugee policy. Die Zeit , October 11, 2013, accessed on October 27, 2013 .
  11. ↑ “At their informal meeting in Copenhagen on January 26 and 27, 2012, the EU interior ministers unanimously spoke out against it. Instead, an early warning mechanism should be established and the development of precautionary capacities for asylum crises should ensure solidarity in the Dublin system. ”Quoted from: EU asylum policy:“ No political will to improve ”. EurActiv, 21 August 2013, accessed 3 October 2015 (updated 7 March 2014).
  12. ↑ Katrin Hatzinger: Dublin II reform: suspension mechanism is off the table. Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD), March 18, 2012, archived from the original on May 8, 2016 ; Retrieved October 3, 2015 .
  13. ↑ De Maizière sharply criticizes EU refugee policy. In: The time . April 16, 2015, accessed August 30, 2015 .
  14. ↑ Germany only wants to redistribute certain refugees. In: The time . August 6, 2015, accessed August 30, 2015 .
  15. ↑ BAMF suspends Dublin transfers of Syrian refugees. In: bordermonitoring.eu. August 24, 2015, accessed August 30, 2015 . Germany suspends Dublin procedures for Syrians. In: Der Spiegel . August 25, 2015, accessed August 30, 2015 .
  16. ↑ The Tyrolean police report a record of apprehensions of illegally immigrants Der Standard.at on February 7, 2016.
  17. ↑ Mass immigration overrides asylum rules . Welt online, June 8, 2017.
  18. ↑ ECJ ruling: Dublin rules also apply in a state of emergency FAZ , July 26, 2017.
  19. ↑ Daniel Thym in conversation with Silvia Engel: "" There was definitely no rule of injustice "" from July 26, 2017.
  20. ↑ Marcel Leubecher: Immigration: European Court of Justice makes it difficult for returned migrants to be deported. In: welt.de . January 28, 2018, accessed October 7, 2018 .
  21. ↑ http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=de&td=ALL&num=C-360/16 EU GH judgment C-360/16