Tarakhel v Switzerland: Another nail in the coffin of the Dublin system?

 

Steve Peers

Introduction

Despite the EU’s purported adherence to high standards of human rights protection, the EU’s Dublin system, which allocates responsibility for each asylum-seeker’s application to a single Member State, has repeatedly run foul of human rights standards. Yesterday’s judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’, or ‘Strasbourg Court’) in Tarakhel v Switzerland, and the recent judgment of the same court in Sharifi v Italy and Greece, have further confirmed the problems in making this system compatible with ECHR obligations.

In fact, the Tarakheljudgment goes further than the prior judgments, which had merely exposed the lack of sufficient human rights protection in the EU legislation, as applied by Member States. Rather, it is now clear that the approach of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in interpreting the Dublin rules is also incompatible with the ECHR.

Background

The Dublin rules initially appeared as part of the Schengen Convention, which bound only certain Member States. They were then set out in the form of the Dublin Convention, signed in 1990. This Convention was replaced by an EC Regulation (known as the ‘Dublin II Regulation’) from 2003. That Regulation was in turn replaced by the Dublin III Regulation, adopted in 2013, which applies to all applications made after 1 January 2014. Furthermore, the Dublin rules have been extended to the non-EU countries associated with the Schengen system, by means of treaties with Norway and Iceland on the one hand, and Switzerland and Liechtensteinon the other.

The previous leading cases on the compatibility of the Dublin regime with human rights were (for the Strasbourg court) the 2011 judgment in MSS v Belgium and Greece, and (for the CJEU) the judgment in NS, delivered later that same year. In MSS, the ECtHR ruled that Greece had violated Article 3 ECHR (the ban on torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment) in three ways: its treatment of the Afghan asylum-seeker in question in detention; its failure to secure adequate living conditions for him after release from detention; and its highly deficient asylum procedure. The evidence of these violations was found in numerous reports by NGOs and international bodies. The Court also ruled that Belgium had violated Article 3 ECHR because it had returned the same asylum-seeker to Greece (in accordance with the Dublin rules), even though it must have known of the situation there. For good measure, the Court also ruled that Belgium had violated Article 13 ECHR (the right to an effective remedy), since Belgium did not provide for sufficient reviews of the merits in cases such as this one.

Subsequently, the CJEU ruled in NS that asylum-seekers could not be returned to Greece, pursuant to the Dublin rules, because of systematic deficiencies in the asylum system in that country. Removals in such cases would constitute a breach of Article 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (the equivalent of Article 3 ECHR). However, the Court distinguished such major breaches of fundamental rights from minor violations of EU or international rules relating to refugees, which would not require Member States to refrain from applying the Dublin rules.

Before the ECtHR could rule in Tarakhel, the CJEU clarified its position in its judgment in Abdullahi, delivered late in 2013. The Court started out by emphasising the presumption that all EU Member States protected human rights, noting that there was now second-phase legislation establishing the Common European Asylum System. It then characterised the Dublin rules as essentially regulating the relationship between Member States, referring in particular to the optional ‘sovereignty’ and ‘humanitarian’ clauses in the Dublin II Regulation, as well as the possibility of conciliation or separate arrangements between Member States. It followed that when two Member States agreed which of them was the Member State of first authorised entry (triggering responsibility under the Dublin rules), an asylum-seeker could ‘only’ challenge that decision by ‘pleading systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the conditions for the reception of applicants for asylum’ in the Member State which was deemed responsible for the asylum application.

Finally, the recent Sharifijudgment pf the Strasbourg Court established that Italy’s interception of asylum-seekers from Greece in the Adriatic, and their forced return to Greece, violated Article 3 ECHR as well as the ban on collective expulsions in the Fourth Protocol to the ECHR. In doing so, it confirmed a key corollary of the MSS ruling: Member States breach the ECHR if they stop asylum-seekers fleeing an unsafe country directly from crossing their borders. Although the rules on freedom to travel for third-country nationals in the Schengen Convention do not give asylum-seekers the right to move between Schengen States (unless, improbably, they have a visa or residence permit, or the visa requirement is waived for their country of origin), the ECHR nevertheless gives asylum-seekers the freedom to travel between Schengen countries (or any States) in such circumstances. Also, the right to move to another country extends beyond the three-month time limit on intra-Schengen travel, since asylum-seekers can in principle stay until their claim is finally rejected.

The Tarakhel judgment

Yesterday’s judgment concerned a family of eight Afghans, who entered the EU by crossing the Italian border first. This made Italy responsible for their applications under the Dublin rules. However, the family soon left the asylum-seekers’ reception centre which they were assigned to in Italy, on the grounds that conditions there were inadequate for families. They moved to Austria, which triggered the Dublin rules, asking Italy to take charge of them. Italy agreed, but before their transfer to Italy could be carried out, they moved on to Switzerland. That country in turn asked Italy to take charge of the family; Italy tacitly accepted.

However, they challenged their removal to Italy on the grounds that their treatment in that country, if they were removed there, would violate Article 3 ECHR. They lost their case in the Swiss courts, so asked the ECtHR to rule that their removal to Italy would constitute a breach of Article 3, as well as Article 8 ECHR (the right to family life). They also alleged a breach of Article 13.

The ECtHR rejected the Article 13 claim on the merits, since the Swiss courts had examined the merits of their legal arguments and they were allowed to stay on Swiss territory in the meantime. It held that it was not necessary to examine the Article 8 argument. Most importantly, by a majority of 14-3, it found that there was a breach of Article 3 ECHR.

Yet there are important differences between the MSS judgment and the Tarakhel judgment. Yesterday’s judgment does not state that Italy’s asylum system has effectively collapsed, as was the case in Greece. In particular, there were no allegations in Tarakhelrelating to flaws in Italy’s asylum procedures, or as regards detention. The argument instead was solely about living conditions in Italian detention centres.

The ECtHR began by reiterating its case law from MSS about reception conditions for asylum-seekers. While Article 3 ECHR did not guarantee a home or financial assistance, in cases involving EU Member States the Court took account of their specific obligations in that respect under the EU’s reception conditions Directive. Also asylum-seekers were an ‘underprivileged and vulnerable group’, and it was possible that extreme poverty could raise issues under Article 3. The Court also referred to other prior case law on the need to ensure that child asylum-seekers, who were in a position of ‘extreme vulnerability’, enjoyed ‘protection and humanitarian assistance’.

Next, the Court reiterated the usual rule that Article 3 prevents removal if ‘substantial grounds have been shown for believing’ that there is a ‘real risk’ of treatment contrary to Article 3 in the state of destination. The same rule could be used to rebut the assumption that countries applying the Dublin system were all safe. In this context, the ECtHR referred to the CJEU’s ‘systemic deficiencies’ test set out in the judgment in NS, but made no reference to the ruling in Abdullahi that this was the ‘only’ ground for challenging the application of the Dublin rules. However, the ECtHR also ‘notes’ the recent EM judgmentof the UK Supreme Court, which expressly stated that ‘systemic deficiencies’ were not the only ground for such challenges. Overall, the Court stated that these tests had to be applied by examining ‘the applicant’s individual situation in light of the overall situation prevailing’ in the state of destination.

Applying these rules to this case, the applicants had made three complaints about the situation of the Italian reception system. The first complaint, about the slowness of identification procedures, was dismissed out of hand, since the applicants had in fact been identified quickly. As for the second complaint, the Court accepted the evidence that there were not enough places for all asylum applicants. Thirdly, as for the reception conditions within the available facilities, a number of problems had been identified by the UNHCR and the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner.

Taken as a whole, then, the Court ruled that the ‘current situation in Italy can in no way be compared to the situation in Greece at the time of the MSS judgment’, where only a small fraction of asylum-seekers could be accommodated and ‘the conditions of the most extreme poverty…existed on a large scale’. So there could not be ‘a bar to all removals of asylum seekers to that country’. Having said that, the Court accepted that there was some risk that asylum-seekers might not get accommodation, or that the accommodation would be inadequate.

As for the individual position of the applicants, that was not comparable to the facts of the MSScase either.  The family in this case were taken care of immediately by the Italian government, rather than detained and then left to fend for themselves. But again, having said that, the Court was concerned that, in light of the vulnerability of asylum-seekers, and children in particular, there was no guarantee of (adequate) accommodation for families seeking asylum in Italy. So Switzerland could not send the family to Italy unless they obtained sufficient assurances on this point. This alone constituted a breach of Article 3 ECHR.

Interestingly, the majority judgment makes no reference to the alternative possibility of asylum-seekers obtaining private family housing at the expense of the State, which the CJEU developed in its recent Saciri judgment on the reception conditions Directive.

Comments

With great respect, there are many flaws with the CJEU’s judgment in Abdullahi. That judgment confuses Regulations (directly applicable in national legal systems) with Conventions (essentially governing relations between States). It places undue reliance on provisions of the Dublin II Regulation which were never applied in practice (conciliation) or were irrelevant to the case at hand (separate arrangements between Member States). It ignores the CJEU’s own case law on the ability to challenge Member States’ application of the Dublin II rules as regards unaccompanied minors (MA), humanitarian situations (K) or withdrawn applications (Kastrati). Its scope is unclear: does it only apply when Member States agree that the criterion regarding irregular entry is applicable, or in other cases as well? In any event, the judgment needs to be rethought in light of the Dublin III Regulation, which considerably expanded the procedural rights of asylum-seekers in the Dublin context. Why do that, if they can only challenge their transfer if there is a complete breakdown in the asylum system of the State responsible for their application?

But the most fundamental flaw in the Abdullahi judgment is exactly that: the CJEU’s statement that at least in some cases, the determination of the responsible Member State can ‘only’ be challenged if there are ‘systemic deficiencies’ in the asylum system of that State. Is that statement still correct after Tarakhel?

Certainly the statement is wrong if the CJEU meant (as it appeared to say) that both the asylum procedure and the reception conditions systems have to have failed in the responsible Member State, before a transfer to that State can be challenged. In Tarakhel, there is no issue raised regarding the asylum procedure in Italy. More generally, the Italian reception system is not in complete breakdown: the Tarakhel family faces neither extreme poverty nor vile detention conditions, but merely some risk that accommodation will either not be available or that it will be somewhat unpleasant. Accordingly, the Swiss obligations are nuanced: there is no ban on transfers, merely a procedural obligation to make arrangements with the Italian authorities.

It isn’t clear whether Tarakhelabandons the CJEU’s assumption that only ‘systemic deficiencies’ in the asylum system of a responsible State can justify a challenge to a Dublin transfer, or whether the judgment merely modifies the notion of ‘systemic deficiencies’ considerably, lowering the threshold for its application. On the first hypothesis, ‘systemic deficiencies’ are just one example of a situation that could lead to rebuttal of the assumption that another Dublin State is safe. Uncertainty about adequate reception conditions for families is another. But surely this cannot be an exhaustive list.

On the second hypothesis, a ‘systemic deficiency’ would not exist only where an asylum system had entirely collapsed, but where some particular aspect of the system was malfunctioning regularly to some extent. By analogy, a car needs to be fixed not only when the brakes entirely fail to work, but also when the windshield wipers occasionally malfunction. The risk is far greater in the first case, but the second case shouldn’t be ignored either. Again, the problems in Tarakhel cannot be the only example of a flaw in the asylum system of a responsible Member State that needs to be fixed before asylum-seekers can be transferred there.

There isn’t much difference between these two possible interpretations of Tarakhel. Although the first interpretation is in principle more open-ended than the second one, it shouldn’t take too much imagination to argue that any particular problem an asylum-seeker might face in the responsible Member State is ‘systematic’ in this very broad sense. The second interpretation does give the CJEU more leeway to back down from its head-banging judgment in Abdullahi, and explain that this was also what it had meant by ‘systemic deficiencies’ all along.

Of course, given the strong insistence on the efficiency of the Dublin system in the Abdullahijudgment, this is obviously not what the Court had meant at the time. Yet the clear message from the Tarakhel case is that there is not a simple binary distinction between cases when all Dublin transfers should stop, on the one hand, and cases when all Dublin transfers should go ahead at full speed, on the other. Instead, like a traffic light, yesterday’s judgment creates an intermediate category of cases in which national administrations must proceed with caution. This will undoubtedly make the Dublin system more costly and complex to administer, but that is often the only way to ensure that human rights are protected effectively.  

Barnard & Peers:  chapter 9, chapter 26

Read More

Child abduction: a further extension of EU exclusive external powers

Steve Peers

It's every parent's worst nightmare: the abduction of their child. If the child is abducted by a stranger, there's obviously a grave threat to the child. But it's far more common for a child to be abducted by a parent who doesn't have custody of him or her, in the context of family law proceedings.

While it's fortunately much less likely that a parent is a threat to a child's welfare, such abductions are still problematic, since they are a breach of court decisions regarding custody. And if the child is taken to another country by the abducting parent, it is far harder for the parent with custodial rights to enforce them. Sometimes, the latter parent doesn't even get to see his or her children for years.

To address this problem, the Hague Conference (an international body) drew up an international treaty, the Hague Convention on the civil aspects of child abduction, back in 1980. All the EU Member States are party to this treaty. In fact, a total of 93 countries have ratified it. According to the latest available statistics, in 2008 the Convention was applied about 2300 times. Two-thirds of the parents taking children were the mothers, and the average age of the abducted children was six. 

Indeed, the very popularity of the Convention was at the heart of a dispute over the EU’s external power regarding it, which was resolved yesterday by the CJEU (Opinion 1/2013). This judgment concerned new States signing up to the Convention, which has an unusual rule on accession: it only applies to new States which ratify it to the extent that the existing signatories individually agree to this.

The EU is not itself a party to the treaty, and it can't be, since the treaty only permits States to be parties. But in the years since the treaty was drawn up, the EU has adopted legislation which addresses child abduction issues (Regulation 2201/2003). So arguably this means that the EU has external competence as regards the subject matter of the Convention, and Member States are only 'trustees' of that power.  In practice, that means that Member States cannot decide unilaterally whether to extend the Convention to new countries or not.

The Commission, believing that this interpretation was correct, proposed in 2011 that the Council adopt eight separate decisions permitting Member States to extend the Convention to third States, including Russia, Albania and Morocco. Most Member States disagreed. So the Commission invoked the special procedure set out in Article 218 TFEU, which allows the CJEU to decide on whether an envisaged international agreement would be in conformity with EU law.

Judgment

The CJEU had to address four arguments against the admissibility of this case.  First of all, the Court ruled that the decision on accession of a new State to the Convention was an 'agreement'. Secondly, it ruled that the impossibility of the EU itself becoming party to the Convention was irrelevant. As it had ruled before, it has jurisdiction under Article 218 TFEU even in 'trusteeship' cases.

Thirdly, the Court ruled that an agreement could still be considered as being 'envisaged' even if a large majority of the Member States in the Council were opposed to it, making its adoption improbable politically. Finally, the Court decided that it was irrelevant that a number of Member States had gone ahead and agreed to extend the Convention to the third States concerned. The possibility that the Commission could have sued those Member States for infringing EU law didn't stop the Commission from invoking the special jurisdiction of Article 218 TFEU.

As for the substance of the case, 19 Member States opposed the Commission view that the EU had external competence in this case. Only the European Parliament, along with Italy, supported the Commission. Nevertheless, the Court agreed with the Commission.

The Court began by noting that the EU has external competence not only when the Treaties expressly provide for it, but also when this is necessary to realise the internal objectives of the EU, even if the Treaties don't make express provision for this. Indeed, the Court stated that Article 216 TFEU now sets out this rule. In this case, the EU competence existed merely because Article 81(3) TFEU gives the EU internal power to adopt legislation on family law matters with cross-border implications.

However, the bigger issue is whether such competence is exclusive, or merely shared with the Member States. On this point, the Court reaffirmed that the EU would enjoy exclusive competence, as set out in its prior case-law and Article 3(2) TFEU, where an international treaty was liable to affect common EU rules or alter their scope. This was the case when the treaty fell within an area which was largely covered by the EU rules.

Applying that law to the facts, the main provisions of the Convention, dealing with return of the child and the right to visit a child, were also the subject of rules in the Regulation. There was a risk that patchwork extension of the treaty to third States by Member States would complicate application of the EU legislation, particularly where a dispute concerned a third State and two Member States, each of which had taken a different view on extending the treaty to the relevant third State. So it followed that the EU had exclusive external competence regarding the extension of the Convention to new countries. 

Comments

The Court’s judgment raises three issues: its impact upon child abduction in practice; the substantive scope of the EU’s external competence generally; and the process of litigating disputes about that competence.

On the first point, fortunately for the children concerned, the dispute regarding the EU’s external competence in this case doesn’t appear to have prevented Member States from extending the Convention to new countries in practice. However, since the new judgment resolves the issue, the Council now needs to move forward quickly to adopt the Commission’s earlier proposals (on family law issues, the Council votes unanimously, after consulting the European Parliament). Also, seven more States have ratified the Convention in the meantime, including Japan and Korea (see the full list of signatories here), so the Commission needs to propose further such measures straight away. A failure to act quickly will run the risk that a parent who has abducted a child to Russia (for example) might try to argue against the enforcement of a ruling issued by a Member State’s court on the return of a child, on the grounds that the Member State’s extension of the Convention to Russia was illegal.

The Court’s ruling also means that any amendment of the Convention in future will also fall within the scope of the EU’s exclusive external competence. This isn’t a purely hypothetical possibility, as there was some contemplation of a protocol to the Convention a few years ago (for the details, see here).  So it’s now clear that Member States will have to act together, or not at all, as regards any amendment to the Convention, and any extension of it to new countries.

As regards the EU’s external competence, there are two issues: the existence and nature of that competence. In fact, this is the first CJEU judgment since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon which touched upon the existence of such competence. The Court’s judgment appears to assume that Article 216 TFEU simply reflects the prior case law; this issue had been debated in literature. And according to the Court, external competence exists where there is an internal legal base and the EU has adopted legislation on the subject in question. The Court didn’t rule on whether the existence of legislation on an issue was necessary before the EU could exercise its external competence. But on the facts of the case, it didn’t have to address that issue.

Moving on to the nature of the EU’s external competence, the Court’s ruling is not very surprising, following the pre-Lisbon judgment on the exclusivity of the EU’s external competence over civil jurisdiction issues (Opinion 1/03), and more recently the broadcasting rightsjudgment, confirming and elaborating a broad approach to finding that EU external competence is exclusive. In fact, EU exclusive competence as regards the child abduction Convention is more self-evident than as regards the planned broadcasters’ rights Convention, given that the two main aspects of the child abduction Convention clearly correspond to provisions of an EU Regulation, which moreover expressly incorporates or supplements some aspects of the Convention.

Finally, as regards the procedural aspects of this case, all four aspects of the Court’s ruling (the definitions of ‘agreement’ and ‘envisaged’, the application to ‘trusteeship’ cases and the relationship with infringement actions) take a broad approach to the scope of its jurisdiction pursuant to Article 218 TFEU. In effect, it’s now clear that all the Commission needs to do in order to trigger the possible use of Article 218 is to make a proposal for an external relations decision by (or on behalf of) the EU to the Council. Even if that proposal is ‘dead on arrival’ in the Council (as in this case), to the extent that Member States ignore the Commission’s proposal and begin ratifying the relevant treaty (or taking other external action) themselves, the Commission can still invoke the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 218. That special jurisdiction only ceases to apply if the Council approves the treaty concerned on the EU’s behalf, and the treaty then binds the EU. This precisely won’t ever be the case if the Council rejects the Commission’s proposal at the outset.

Having said that, the Court’s judgment does appear to draw a distinction between legaland political reasons for rejecting a Commission proposal, stating that in this case, the case was admissible because the Council’s reasons for rejection were purely legal. What if its objections were political – or both legal and political? And how can one tell the difference between those grounds?

Furthermore, does this reasoning also apply to the European Parliament? It has no veto right over family law treaties, but it does over most treaties concluded by the EU. The Commission passed up a chance to clarify this issue when it withdrew its request for a CJEU Article 218 ruling as regards the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, after the EP refused its consent to that treaty on political grounds. Arguably, the legal questions remain relevant even if a treaty has been rejected by either the Council or the EP on political grounds; but the Commission surely shows good judgment by accepting the political decision of either branch of the EU’s legislature and withdrawing applications for a Court ruling in such circumstances.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 24

Read More

Unaccompanied minor asylum-seekers: a step in the right direction?

Steve Peers

The EU’s Dublin system on the allocation of responsibility for asylum-seekers, which sets out rules determining which single Member State has responsibility for considering an asylum-seeker’s application, has long been decried as unworkable and an infringement of human rights. These broader arguments will be addressed in a future post on this blog, but for the moment it’s a good time to have a look at yesterday’s proposal from the Commission to ameliorate the Dublin system’s effects a little.

The proposal only covers applications by unaccompanied minors, who make up a small proportion of the total number of asylum-seekers. Nevertheless, they constitute a particularly vulnerable group. Currently, the Dublin III Regulation states that the Member State responsible for an unaccompanied minor asylum-seeker is the Member State where a family member or sibling of the minor is legally present, if that is in the best interests of the child. A ‘family member’ is defined as a spouse, parent or guardian (if the minor is unmarried), or child of the asylum-seeker, if the family already existed in the country of origin. If the minor is married but his or her spouse is not in the EU, then the Member State where his or parents are legally present is responsible.

If there are no such persons on the territory of a Member State, then the Member State where a ‘relative’ of the unaccompanied minor is legally present is responsible, if that relative can take care of him or her.  A ‘relative’ is defined as an aunt, uncle or grandparent.

If there are family members, siblings or relatives in multiple Member States, then the responsible Member State is decided on the basis of the best interests of the child.

Finally, if no such persons can be found, the ‘default’ rule is that the Member State responsible is the State where the unaccompanied minor has applied for asylum, if that is in his or her best interests. But the legislation does not expressly address how this rule applies if the minor applies for asylum in more than one Member State.

When the Dublin III Regulation was negotiated in 2012, these provisions were hotly disputed between the European Parliament and the Council. The two institutions finally agreed to leave the default rule untouched, since there was a pending case on the interpretation of that rule before the CJEU. However, they adopted a joint declaration calling on the Commission to consider making a proposal to amend the legislation as regards that issue once the Court had delivered its ruling.

The Court gave its ruling in that case (MA) in June 2013, and the Commission has now presented its proposal. According to the Court, where an unaccompanied minor has already made an application for asylum in one Member State, and then proceeds to make an application in another one, the default rule should be interpreted to mean that the Member State where the most recent application was made is responsible for the application.

In the Court’s view, this interpretation was necessary first of all for literal reasons, as the legislation does not refer to the first Member State where the application was made. Secondly, unaccompanied minors were vulnerable persons, so the procedure to apply the Dublin rules should be as short as possible. Finally, this interpretation was most consistent with the ‘best interest of the child’, as required by Article 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Yesterday’s proposal would first of all entrench the Court’s interpretation as an express rule in the Dublin Regulation, covering all cases where the asylum-seeker had applied in multiple Member States. This is the interpretation that the EP favoured, and had tried to fight for as an express rule back in 2012.

It would also set out a new rule which would apply when the unaccompanied minor has made an asylum application in one Member State, and is present in a second Member State, but has notmade an application in the second Member State.  In that case, the second Member State should ‘inform’ the child of the possibility of applying for asylum there, and give him or her an ‘effective opportunity’ to apply.

If the minor takes up the opportunity to apply for asylum in the second Member State, that Member State becomes responsible for the application. If he or she does not apply, then the Member State where he or she has most recently applied is responsible.

The new proposal also specifies that the Member States concerned shall cooperate to establish what the best interests of the child are. Finally, it sets out an express rule on Member States informing each other of their decisions; the CJEU had already established such an obligation in the MA judgment.

Comments

In principle this proposal is very welcome, given that it exempts unaccompanied minors from the full rigour of the Dublin rules. While this might reduce the pressure to reform those rules, there is little prospect of a fundamental change in those rules (at least at the EU legislature's behest; the courts may be a different matter). So at least one category of vulnerable persons can escape from them. 

More particularly, the proposal both confirms the ‘applicant’s choice’ rule for unaccompanied minors without family members first established by last year’s judgment, and also extends that rule to more situations. However, there are certain limits on the proposal, and flaws which could be improved.

First of all, it should be noted that the proposal does not cover the position of those whose application for asylum has already been rejected in another Member State. But the Court of Justice referred to that issue in its MA judgment, noting that in such cases the second Member State has the option to treat the application as inadmissible in accordance with the EU’s asylum procedures rules. Presumably that rule would continue to apply here.

On this point, however, in principle there should not be many fast-track refusals of applications by unaccompanied minors, given the convoluted exceptions from some of the fast-track rules set out in the second-phase Directive on asylum procedures.

Secondly, the new amendment would not clarify what is meant by the obligation to ‘inform’ the child about applying for asylum and give him or her an ‘effective opportunity’ to apply for asylum. Although there is a rule in the Regulation already spelling out an obligation to inform asylum-seekers about Dublin rules, it only applies once the person concerned has applied for asylum. So it doesn’t cover the position of those who haven’t applied yet. There should be express rules on this issue, in order to ensure that the child is made fully aware of the choice of making a fresh application.

As for the effective opportunity to apply for asylum, there is a (rather vague) rule on this issue in the second-phase Directive on asylum procedures. But it isn’t clear if the proposed new rules in the Dublin Regulation would confer less, more or the same degree of protection than the rules in the Directive.

Thirdly, the prospect of Member States deciding between themselves on what is in the best interests of the child is problematic. Surely, in accordance with the EU Charter, the child has a right to express a view on this issue, especially since EU asylum law guarantees him or her the right to a representative for this very purpose? So the legislation should guarantee that any decision which Member States take which is purportedly in the best interests of the child should be open to challenge, following a prior right to a hearing and the disclosure of relevant information on this subject.

Next, the proposal may mean that more Member States in practice embark on the controversial practice of trying to determine the age of teenagers who claim to be 'minors' (the EU legislation defines this as being under 18). The asylum procedures Directive has rules on this issue, but there are no rules on what happens if the person turns 18 during the procedure.  

Finally, it must be noted that the rules will only be relevant for those minors who have the effective possibility of moving between Member States. They will need some knowledge of which Member States they might wish to apply to, and how to get there, as well as the money to arrange for their travel. Furthermore, they will obviously not be able to move to another Member State in order to apply there if they are in detention. On this point, it should be noted that the revised reception conditions Directive provides that unaccompanied minors can only be detained in ‘exceptional circumstances’.

Given the freedom of unaccompanied minors to make applications in another Member State, it cannot be argued that this possibility justifies their detention. In fact, the grounds for detention in the reception conditions Directive do not provide for such a case. Similarly, while the Dublin rules do allow detention if there is a ‘significant risk of absconding’, it is difficult to see how that ground for detention can apply to unaccompanied minors in light of these rules.  

Barnard & Peers: chapter 9, chapter 26 

Read More