Advanced

Dublin IV - Making transfers (im)possible) -- An analysis of human rights concerns in the envisioned Dublin IV Regulation

Mortenlind, Johannes LU (2018) JURM02 20182
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
This thesis aims to analyse the prohibitions of transfers of asylum seekers in the Dublin System, and how compatible the Commission’s Proposal for a Dublin IV Regulation is with human rights law.
The Dublin System is meant to allocate responsibility between Member States regarding asylum applications. After the responsible Member State has been decided according to certain criteria, the asylum seeker is meant to be transferred to a receiving Member State. However, the Dublin III Regulation has been struggling with inefficiency, due to its lengthy procedures and lack of procedural guarantees and safeguards.
The Dublin III Regulation has been criticised due its incompliance with human rights law. Transfers under the Dublin system were... (More)
This thesis aims to analyse the prohibitions of transfers of asylum seekers in the Dublin System, and how compatible the Commission’s Proposal for a Dublin IV Regulation is with human rights law.
The Dublin System is meant to allocate responsibility between Member States regarding asylum applications. After the responsible Member State has been decided according to certain criteria, the asylum seeker is meant to be transferred to a receiving Member State. However, the Dublin III Regulation has been struggling with inefficiency, due to its lengthy procedures and lack of procedural guarantees and safeguards.
The Dublin III Regulation has been criticised due its incompliance with human rights law. Transfers under the Dublin system were prohibited in several so called ‘Dublin cases’ by the European Court of Human Rights, as the living conditions and flawed asylum procedures in Greece and Italy violated Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The most notable cases are M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece and Tarakhel v. Switzerland, which requires Member States to conduct individual assessments and offer individualised guarantees to asylum seekers that their right to non-refoulement will not be violated.
The requirements of individual assessments and guarantees in Dublin transfers is problematic for the EU, as the transfer system is based upon a presumption of that all EU Member States comply with human rights. Ergo, an individualised control should not be necessary. The reasoning is derived from the principle of mutual trust between EU Member States. The Court of Justice of the European Union has therefore been reluctant to prohibit Dublin transfers on human rights grounds. In the ruling N.S. and M.E, the Court limited the prohibition of transfers to cases where there are systemic flaws in the receiving Member State.
The European Commission lodged a Proposal for a Dublin IV Regulation in December 2016, aiming to reform the Dublin System and increase its efficiency. The Proposal does not make the Dublin System coherent with human rights law, and has been criticised by the European Parliament, UNHCR, ECRE and the EESC. In three different issues, there is a continued risk for non-refoulement violations according to Article 3 and 13 of the ECHR. Firstly, the prohibition of transfers remains limited to systemic flaws in the receiving Member State’s asylum system. Secondly, the introduction of generalised inadmissibility checks based on safe country considerations risks similar violations. Thirdly, the withdrawal of procedural guarantees and safeguards for unaccompanied violates both the right to non-refoulement and the principle of the best interest of the child.
The European Parliament subsequently amended the Commission’s Proposal. The Parliamentary amendment is, in contrast to the Commission’s Proposal, largely coherent with human rights law. It remains to be seen whether the Dublin IV Regulation will be passed, and if so in what version. This thesis reaches the conclusion that the Commission’s Proposal would make Dublin transfers impossible, as the proposal is incoherent with human rights law and risks continuous violations of Article 3 and 13 of the ECHR. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Denna uppsats syftar till att analysera förutsättningarna för att förbjuda förflyttningar av asylsökande inom det gällande Dublinsystemet, samt hur kompatibelt den europeiska kommissionens förslag för en Dublin IV Förordning är med mänskliga rättigheter.

Dublinsystemet har till syfte att fördela skyldigheten att hantera asylansökningar mellan medlemsstaterna inom EU till en ansvarig medlemsstat. Sedan en ansvarig medlemsstat har bestämts, ska den asylsökande förflyttas till den mottagande medlemsstaten. Dublin III Förordningen har problem med dess ineffektivitet till följd av utdragna procedurer och en avsaknad av garantier och rättsskydd för asylsökande.

Dublin III Förordningen har kritiserats på grund av dess bristande enlighet med... (More)
Denna uppsats syftar till att analysera förutsättningarna för att förbjuda förflyttningar av asylsökande inom det gällande Dublinsystemet, samt hur kompatibelt den europeiska kommissionens förslag för en Dublin IV Förordning är med mänskliga rättigheter.

Dublinsystemet har till syfte att fördela skyldigheten att hantera asylansökningar mellan medlemsstaterna inom EU till en ansvarig medlemsstat. Sedan en ansvarig medlemsstat har bestämts, ska den asylsökande förflyttas till den mottagande medlemsstaten. Dublin III Förordningen har problem med dess ineffektivitet till följd av utdragna procedurer och en avsaknad av garantier och rättsskydd för asylsökande.

Dublin III Förordningen har kritiserats på grund av dess bristande enlighet med mänskliga rättigheter. Europadomstolen har förbjudit förflyttningar inom Dublinsystemet i flera så kallade ’Dublinfall’. Detta då levnadsförhållanden och bristande asylprocedurer i Grekland och Italien stred mot artikel 3 och 13 EKMR. De framträdande fallen i Europadomstolens praxis är M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece och Tarakhel v. Switzerland, där Europadomstolen kräver att medlemsstaterna ska utföra individuella bedömningar och erbjuda individualiserade garantier till asylsökande att deras rätt till non-refoulement förblir okränkt.

Kraven på individuella bedömningar och garantier vid Dublinförflyttningar är problematiska för EU, eftersom förflyttningssystemet är baserat på presumtionen att samtliga medlemsstater agerar i enlighet med mänskliga rättigheter. Följaktligen borde individualiserade kontroller inte vara nödvändiga. Resonemanget kan spåras till principen om ömsesidigt förtroende mellan EU:s medlemsstater. EU-domstolen har därför varit skeptisk till att förbjuda Dublinförflyttningar till följd av mänskliga rättigheter. Vid avgörandet N.S. and M.E begränsade EU-domstolen förbudet till de fall där det förekommer systematiska brister i den mottagande medlemsstaten.

Den Europeiska kommissionen lade fram ett förslag för en Dublin IV Förordning i december 2016, som syftade till att reformera Dublinsystemet och öka dess effektivitet. Förslaget bidrar inte till att göra Dublinsystemet enhetligt med mänskliga rättigheter, och har kritiserats av Europaparlamentet, UNHCR, ECRE och EESC. Vid tre olika frågor, föreligger en fortsatt risk för kränkningar av rätten till non-refoulement enligt artikel 3 och 13 EKMR. För det första, är förbud av Dublinförflyttningar fortsatt begränsad till fall där det förekommer systematiska brister i den mottagande medlemsstatens asylsystem. För det andra, introduceras en generaliserad inträdeskontroll som kan leda till avslag baserat på att den asylsökande färdats genom ett säkert tredje land. För det tredje, undandras procedurella garantier och rättsskydd för ensamkommande barn vilket kränker både rätten till non-refoulement och principen om barnets bästa.

Europaparlamentet har sedermera lagt ett ändringsförslag till kommissionens förslag. Ändringsförslaget är, till skillnad från kommissionens förslag, till stora delar förenligt med mänskliga rättigheter. Det återstår att se huruvida Dublin IV förordningen kommer antas och i vilken form. Denna uppsats når slutsatsen att kommissionens förslag skulle omöjliggöra Dublinförflyttningar, då förslaget är oförenligt med mänskliga rättigheter och riskerar fortsatta kränkningar av artikel 3 och 13 EKMR. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Mortenlind, Johannes LU
supervisor
organization
course
JURM02 20182
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
public international law, EU law
language
English
id
8965465
date added to LUP
2019-01-28 11:25:49
date last changed
2019-01-28 11:25:49
@misc{8965465,
  abstract     = {This thesis aims to analyse the prohibitions of transfers of asylum seekers in the Dublin System, and how compatible the Commission’s Proposal for a Dublin IV Regulation is with human rights law.
The Dublin System is meant to allocate responsibility between Member States regarding asylum applications. After the responsible Member State has been decided according to certain criteria, the asylum seeker is meant to be transferred to a receiving Member State. However, the Dublin III Regulation has been struggling with inefficiency, due to its lengthy procedures and lack of procedural guarantees and safeguards.
The Dublin III Regulation has been criticised due its incompliance with human rights law. Transfers under the Dublin system were prohibited in several so called ‘Dublin cases’ by the European Court of Human Rights, as the living conditions and flawed asylum procedures in Greece and Italy violated Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The most notable cases are M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece and Tarakhel v. Switzerland, which requires Member States to conduct individual assessments and offer individualised guarantees to asylum seekers that their right to non-refoulement will not be violated.
The requirements of individual assessments and guarantees in Dublin transfers is problematic for the EU, as the transfer system is based upon a presumption of that all EU Member States comply with human rights. Ergo, an individualised control should not be necessary. The reasoning is derived from the principle of mutual trust between EU Member States. The Court of Justice of the European Union has therefore been reluctant to prohibit Dublin transfers on human rights grounds. In the ruling N.S. and M.E, the Court limited the prohibition of transfers to cases where there are systemic flaws in the receiving Member State.
The European Commission lodged a Proposal for a Dublin IV Regulation in December 2016, aiming to reform the Dublin System and increase its efficiency. The Proposal does not make the Dublin System coherent with human rights law, and has been criticised by the European Parliament, UNHCR, ECRE and the EESC. In three different issues, there is a continued risk for non-refoulement violations according to Article 3 and 13 of the ECHR. Firstly, the prohibition of transfers remains limited to systemic flaws in the receiving Member State’s asylum system. Secondly, the introduction of generalised inadmissibility checks based on safe country considerations risks similar violations. Thirdly, the withdrawal of procedural guarantees and safeguards for unaccompanied violates both the right to non-refoulement and the principle of the best interest of the child.
The European Parliament subsequently amended the Commission’s Proposal. The Parliamentary amendment is, in contrast to the Commission’s Proposal, largely coherent with human rights law. It remains to be seen whether the Dublin IV Regulation will be passed, and if so in what version. This thesis reaches the conclusion that the Commission’s Proposal would make Dublin transfers impossible, as the proposal is incoherent with human rights law and risks continuous violations of Article 3 and 13 of the ECHR.},
  author       = {Mortenlind, Johannes},
  keyword      = {public international law,EU law},
  language     = {eng},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Dublin IV - Making transfers (im)possible) -- An analysis of human rights concerns in the envisioned Dublin IV Regulation},
  year         = {2018},
}