Come and join our network of European lawyers engaged in Dublin III family reunion work.
These are resources pertaining to Dublin III, its legal interpretation and evaluation of its implementation across Europe.
The Dublin III Regulation. This regulation establishes the criteria and mechanisms for determining the State responsible for assessing an individuals’ application for international protection.
This European Commission Regulation establishes specific arrangements for the effective application of Dublin III
(August 2017) This report analyses the extent to which the Dublin III Regulation is implemented across Member States and contains recommendations on how States can improve the application of it in the short- and long-term future. The report specifically focuses on the provision of information, the use of personal interviews, guarantees for children, discretionary clauses, transfers and use of detention across Member States.
(6th April 2018) This report covers the deprivation of liberty in the asylum context under ECHR and EU law. It contains a comparative analysis of the national legal frameworks and practice in the 23 European countries covered by the Asylum Information Database. References to the Dublin III Regulations are made at pages 8, 12, 13 and 28. The report argues that clarification is needed in the frameworks, recommending certain reforms to improve EU law and national practice in this area.
(18th March 2016) This report covers phase one of a study undertaken by the European Commission on the Dublin III Regulation. The overall study’s objective is to provide an analysis on the practical implementation of Dublin, an evaluation on its effectiveness and to identify potential aspects that could be amended. This report feeds into the implementation of Dublin by looking at the organisational structure and resources of the competent authorities dealing with Dublin, procedural guarantees and safeguards for applications for international protection amongst other things.
(14th May 2018) This report focuses on issues related to age assessment and child fingerprinting, taking into consideration the work already undertaken at the EU level, especially by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO). The report argues that fingerprinting, particularly in children as young as six years old, should be carried out in full respect of fundamental rights and the rights of the child. References are made to Dublin III regulation in the context of the European Commission submitting a proposal for a revised Eurodac Regulation, for comparing fingerprints in order to effectively apply the Dublin III Regulation. Further reference is made to the FRA opinion on the impact on children of the proposal for a revised Dublin Regulation.
(March 2018) This briefing provides an overview of major developments relating to asylum procedures, reception conditions, detention of asylum seekers and content of international protection across the European countries covered by the Asylum Information Database.
(March 2016) This document provides a set of reference and guidance materials on family tracing, as well as mapping the family tracing processes in Member States. It explores the reasons why family tracing must be undertaken by the national authorities in order to fulfil the rights of unaccompanied children in need of international protection in compliance with the principles and rights enshrined in international and European legislation. Family tracing for the purposes of Dublin III is discussed throughout.
(March 2017) This study examines the EU’s mechanism of relocation of asylum seekers from Greece and Italy to other Member States, including in the context of the Dublin Regulation. The study recommends that asylum seekers’ interests and rights be duly taken into account, as it is only through their full engagement that relocation will be successful. The study concludes that relocation can become a system that provides flexibility for Member States and local host communities, as well as accommodating the agency and dignity of asylum seekers. The study argues for greater cooperation from receiving States and a clearer role for a single EU legal and institutional framework to organise preference matching and rationalise efforts and resources overall. Chapter 5 (page 60) examines relocation in a context of Dublin IV, making recommendations in respect of the proposed changes.
EDAL provides a resource to search for European asylum case law and legislation, including judgments on the Dublin III Regulation.
(February 2018) This legal note assembles legal theory from national courts on the subject of family reunification within the Dublin Regulation. Legislative standards in EU and international law, the jurisprudence of the European Courts, and domestic case law are examined in turn. The report considers the difficulties facing legal practitioners and courts in positing issues of family reunion, in addition to the challenges posed by administrative deficiencies and Member States’ mechanisms for stultifying family reunion. Key cases and legislative provisions developing and challenging the factual matrix underpinning judicial decisions on family reunion are analysed. Commentary on such jurisprudence includes an examination of how discretionary the discretionary clauses contained in Articles 16 and 17 are.
(12th April 2018) In this case, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that an unaccompanied minor who attains the age of majority during the asylum procedure retains their right to family unification. The Court qualified ‘minor’ nationals of non-EU countries and stateless persons who are below the age of 18 at the moment of their entry into the territory of a Member State and of the introduction of their asylum application in that state and who, during the asylum procedure, attain the age of majority and thereafter are recognised as having refugee status. The court clarified that the application for family reunification must be made within a reasonable time, namely, within three months of the date on which the minor concerned was recognised as having refugee status.
(July 2017) In this case, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that: (1) an applicant can challenge a transfer order based on the expiry of the three month deadline set out in article 21 of Dublin III for a Member State to submit a “take charge” request to another Member State; (2) a “take charge” request must be submitted no more than three months after the lodging or making of an application for international protection (and that this time frame is not extended by the two months allowed for making a take charge request following a Eurodac hit); and (3) the three month period begins when information from any document “prepared by a public authority and certifying that a third-country national has requested international protection” reaches the agency responsible for determining responsibility under the Dublin III Regulation.
(January 2018) This report covers a list of judgements and pending preliminary references in relation to the Reception Conditions Directive 2003/EC (recast 2013/22/EU), the Dublin II Regulation 343/2003 (recast 604/2013), the Qualification Directive 2004/83/EC (recast 2011/95/EU) and the Procedures Directive 2005/85/EC (recast 2013/32/EU). The section relating to judgements and pending preliminary references in relation to the Dublin III Regulation can be found on page 5.
(September 2017)This report examines the jurisprudence that governs the best interests of the child and how the procedural and material provisions serving to protect the best interests of the child interlink with State responsibility and other legal instruments, such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. A key theme of the report is how the determination of the child’s best interests can impact whether a Dublin transfer or a family reunification transfer can or cannot occur. Mechanisms within the Dublin III Regulation are examined, particularly Article 6. Consideration is also given to the weight attributed to the child’s best interests and provisions protecting such interests in the European Courts. Cases analysed include MA and Others, ZAT and Others, and K v Bundesasylamt.
(March 2018) This update provides an overview of the 2017 statistics and practice relating to the Dublin system from the European countries covered by the Asylum Information Database.