Dublin Convention
Council Regulation (EC ) No 343/ 2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the signatory State which is responsible for examining an asylum country nationals lodged in one signatory state asylum application, is a regulation of the European Union according to which the Member State is determined, which is responsible for processing an asylum application. The regulation was 50/ 01 published in the Official Journal of the EC L 25 February 2003. She joined in March 2003 and replaced the Dublin Convention, which is why it is referred to simply as the Dublin II Regulation.
Below is the Dublin III Regulation in force since 19 July 2013.
Scope, content
In adopting Regulation Denmark were initially granted certain reservations and exceptions, but gave up the land in 2006. Therefore, the Dublin II Regulation is now regarded in all Member States. By contract, also the non -EU countries Norway, Iceland and Switzerland have joined the regulated by the Dublin II Regulation asylum system.
The Regulation lays down rules which Member State is responsible for a made in the scope of application for asylum. This is to ensure that an asylum seeker within the Member States may only operate an asylum procedure. Which state is responsible for examining an asylum application is determined by the criteria set out in the Regulation. If the asylum seekers still in another Member State, his asylum application, no more asylum procedure is performed, but transferred to the asylum seeker to the Member State responsible. The backbone of the Dublin II Regulation is the European database Eurodac, when tested, their competence evidence provides the asylum authorities, whether the applicant concerned has made an application already in another Member State and / or when and where he illegally cross the external borders of the scope of the Regulation has been exceeded.
The criteria for determining which essentially follow the basic idea that the Member State should be responsible for the implementation of the asylum procedure, which has prompted the entry or not prevented. After that, a State is responsible if the asylum seeker has come with a visa issued by that State within the scope of the Dublin II Regulation or if he entered illegally across the borders of a Member State. But also humanitarian aspects which are reflected mainly in the principle of family unity will be considered: Travel about members of a family in various ways within the scope of the Dublin II Regulation, a, are treated together their applications for asylum still in a particular state.
Application for asylum in accordance with this rule on jurisdiction is any request for international protection from a Member State, which as a protection request under the provisions of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees ( " Refugee Convention " ) may be considered (Art. 2 c Dublin II Regulation ), so that the asylum application ( the Basic Law) falls under Article 16a, paragraph 1 of the Basic Law, as well as including the application for refugee status in accordance with § 60 Section 1 of the Residence ( residence Act ).
Criticism
Occasionally, the Dublin II Regulation is criticized as implementing a deemed restrictive attitude of the signatory states towards asylum seekers. The states of the EU's external borders control these limits strictly, because they would be responsible for all subsequent asylum procedure and the associated costs otherwise. Often migrants still try to overcome the limitations; often depending on professional smugglers.
Critics of the German practice however, clearly refer to the end of the Dublin procedure before the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, which often prepares the transfer of the applicant to another European state without notice to the parties concerned and the removal of the person concerned in accordance with § 34a Abs. 1 AsylVfG ( asylum Procedure Act ) can be carried out without prior notice.
The Dublin II Regulation but also because of non-performance in all countries equally asylum and social standards in the discussion. That was in the recent past in the case of Greece, so if asylum seekers due to the Dublin II Regulation were to be transferred to Greece. Given the many information as meaning that asylum seekers in Greece is not granted access to a regulated asylum procedure and a corresponding European social standards supply, transfers from Germany to Greece were exposed by some administrative courts since 2008. Finally, the Federal Constitutional Court had suspended transfers to Greece starting with a decision September 8, 2009 provisionally. To a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court on the merits, it is then no longer come because the Interior Ministry has declared the meantime, all applications for asylum in Germany, which would actually be machined to the Dublin II Regulation in Greece until January 18, 2012 to take over. Such a takeover of the asylum procedure is each State through the so-called self- entry possible, provided that in him an asylum application has been made ( Article 3 para 2 Dublin II Regulation ).
Meanwhile, the German administrative courts and in other Dublin states reservations: Thus in November 2010 for the first time an administrative court suspended on the grounds of insufficient social standards to surrender a fugitive to Italy. The circumstances under which even recognized refugees housed and cared for in Italy are documented by a report published by Pro asylum.
Of great importance for the Dublin II Regulation is the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on 21 January 2011. In the case involved the deportation of an Afghan nationals of Belgium, who had applied for asylum there. The Belgian Aliens Office ordered the transfer of the complainant to Greece, where he could apply for asylum. The Court saw the transfer of the complainant from Belgium to Greece because of the shortcomings in the local asylum system as " inhuman and degrading treatment " within the meaning of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR ) on. At the same time Greece was sentenced living conditions for asylum because of the local adhesion and ( violation of Article 13 ECHR, "the right to an effective remedy ").