Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
03/08/2021
DE: No Dublin transfer to Romania when initial procedures were discontinued and the applicant risks being exposed to inhuman treatment

ECLI
Input Provided By
EUAA IDS
Other Source/Information
Type
Judgment
Original Documents
Relevant Legislative Provisions
Dublin Regulation III (Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for IP)
Reference
Germany, Regional Administrative Court [Verwaltungsgericht], Applicant v Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF), No A 13 K 2227/21, 03 August 2021. Link redirects to the English summary in the EUAA Case Law Database.
Permanent link to the case
https://caselaw.euaa.europa.eu/pages/viewcaselaw.aspx?CaseLawID=1978
Case history
Other information
Abstract

The case concerned the Dublin transfer of an applicant to Romania and the examination of the feasibility of the transfer in light of the individual circumstances of the applicant in Romania. The Regional Administrative Court noted that according to Romanian legislation, if more than nine months passed after the end of the asylum procedure, an applicant can only submit a subsequent application upon return, thus resulting in a legal status less advantageous than first time applicants, including an exclusion from the material reception conditions (information based on the AIDA Country Report Romania, 2020).


The Administrative Court assessed the transfer based on the risk for the applicant to be exposed to treatment contrary to the Article 4 of the EU Charter due to weaknesses of the asylum and reception systems, thus rebutting the presumption that all countries part of the CEAS are compliant with international standards with regard to treatment of applicants.


The Administrative Court reiterated that it is a high threshold to be demonstrated and it is reached if an applicant, entirely dependant on national authorities assistance, would find himself or herself in a situation of extreme material hardship, lacking access to basic needs (food, hygiene, accommodation) and putting the applicant’s physical and mental health in danger, contrary to human dignity, due to insufficient action by the respective State (reference to the CJEU case Ibrahim, C-297/17, 19 March 2019).


In this particular case, the Administrative Court found that the high threshold is likely to be reached for a transfer to Romania because the later does not offer accommodation and material reception conditions to subsequent applicants, contrary to the EU law, according to which such restrictions are to be taken in exceptional cases. The Administrative Court held that the applicant risks being exposed to treatment contrary to the Article 4 EU Charter, also in light of her multiple health issues (cervical herniated disc with back pain, hypertonus, post-traumatic stress disorder with moderate depressive episode), her advanced age and the lack of language skills in Romania. All these factors lead to the conclusion that the applicant will probably not be able to secure her existential livelihood independently, and the massive impact of the COVID-19 pandemic resulting in a deterioration of the economic situation adds to the difficult situation the applicant would find herself, also in the absence of a family network or high professional skills.  


Country of Decision
Germany
Court Name
DE: Regional Administrative Court [Verwaltungsgericht]
Case Number
No A 13 K 2227/21
Date of Decision
03/08/2021
Country of Origin
Keywords
Assessment of Application
Country of Origin Information
COVID-19/Emergency measures
Dublin procedure
Reception/Accommodation
Torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Source
Asyl.net