The Dublin System
Beata Szakacsova


Dublin system
´a set of criteria and mechanisms for determining which Member State is responsible for considering
an application for international protection ´establishes the principle that only one Member State
is responsible for examining an asylum application ´It aims to avoid the ‘refugees in orbit’
situation, where no Member State would be willing to accept responsibility for examining an
application. ´Also aims to avoid ‘asylum shopping’, where the same person applies for international
protection in several Member States.
´

Dublin system – legal basis
´Article 78 TFEU
•1. The Union shall develop a common policy on asylum, subsidiary protection and temporary
protection with a view to offering appropriate status to any third-country national requiring
international protection and ensuring compliance with the principle of non-refoulement. (…in
accordance with the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating
to the status of refugees, and other relevant treaties)
•2 For the purposes of paragraph 1, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance
with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall adopt measures for a common European asylum system
comprising:
•e) criteria and mechanisms for determining which Member State is responsible for considering an
application for asylum or subsidiary protection; (…)
´

TFEU = Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Dublin system – legal basis
´Article 78 (3) TFEU
´ In the case of one or more Member States being confronted by an emergency situation characterized
by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries, the Council, on a proposal of the Commission,
may adopt provisional measures for the benefit of the Member State(s) concerned. It shall act after
consulting the European Parliament.
´
´ Legal basis for the Council Decision (EU) 2015/1523 of 14 September 2015 and consequently Council
Decision (EU) 2015/1601 of 22 September 2015 establishing provisional measures in the area of
international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece – a temporary and exceptional
relocation mechanism from Italy and Greece to other Member States of persons in clear need of
international protection
´
´Article 80 TFEU
´ The policies of the Union set out in this Chapter and their implementation shall be governed by
the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, including its financial
implications, between the Member States. (…)

How did we arrive to the Dublin III Regulation?
•Dublin Convention (signed in Dublin, Ireland, on 15 June 1990, in effect from 1997)
•Dublin II Regulation (no 343/2003) – replaced the Dublin Convention in 2003
•Dublin III Regulation (no 604/2013) – in force since 1 January 2014
•
•In 2016  -  the Commission proposed a draft of the Dublin IV Regulation COM(2016)270 (still in the
legislative process – not yet finalized nor in effect!)
´ The main elements of the proposal:
´ - a new automated system to monitor the number of applicants for international protection and the
number of persons effectively resettled by each Member State
´ - a reference key to determine when a Member State is under disproportionate asylum pressure
´ - a fairness mechanism to address and alleviate that pressure
•
´

Which states participate on the Dublin system?
´the EU Member States except for Denmark(Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic,
Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden) ´     !
Denmark is bound by the Dublin rules by means of a treaty instead of the regulation
´Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Lichtenstein
´
´the Dublin III Regulation is no longer part of the United Kingdom law, only some parts continue to
apply under transitional provisions for requests made before the transition

Criteria for establishing responsibility
´Article 3(1) of the Dublin III Regulation – Access to the procedure for examining an application
for international protection
´– the application shall be examined by a single Member State, which shall be the one which the
criteria set out in Chapter III indicate are responsible
´- also establishes the right of applicants to have their application for international protection
examined
-
´Article 7 of the Dublin III Regulation – Hierarchy of criteria
´- shall be applied in the order in which they are set out in Chapter III
´
´- on the basis of the situation when the applicant first lodged an application for international
protection
´- in view of the application of Articles 8, 10 a 16 take into consideration any available evidence
regarding the presence of any family members, relatives or any other family relations of the
applicant
´

Criteria for establishing responsibility
´
´Special rules for unaccompanied minors
´Family considerations
´MS which allowed entry to its territory
´ A – based on residence documents or visa
´ B – irregular entry or stay
´ C- visa waived entry
´Application lodged at the transit area of an international airport
´Residual criterion (if neither of the previous criteria cannot be applied)
´
´+ special rules for dependent persons
´Discretionary clauses (humanitarian clause)
´
´
´

1. Special criteria for unaccompanied minors
´Unaccompanied minor  – the responsible Member State is the one, where a family member, a sibling
or a relative of the unaccompanied minor is legally present, provided that it is in the best
interests of the minor (Art. 8))
´Who is a family member?
´Definition in Art. 2 (g) of the Dublin III Regulation
-the spouse of the applicant or in some Member States his or her unmarried partner in a stable
relationship
-minor children of the applicant, on condition that they are unmarried
-when the applicant is a minor and unmarried, the father, mother or another adult responsible for
the applicant
´-        when the beneficiary of international protection is a minor and unmarried, the father,
mother or another     adult responsible for him or her.
´Who is a relative?
´Definition in Art. 2(h) of the Dublin III Regulation
-the applicant’s adult aunt or uncle or grandparent who is present in the territory of a member
State
´In the absence of a family member, a sibling or a relative, the MS responsible shall be that where
the unaccompanied minor has lodged his or her application for international protection, provided
that it is in the best interests of the minor

2. Special criteria for family members - A
´responsible is the MS, where the applicant has a family member, who has been allowed to reside as
a beneficiary of international protection (Art. 9) ´responsible is the MS, where the applicant has
a family member whose application for international protection has not yet been the subject of a
first decision regarding the substance (čl. 10)
´the persons concerned must express their desire to be united in writing
´Who are family members?
´the definition in Art. 2(g) applies for the entire Dublin III Regulation
-the spouse of the applicant or in some Member States his or her unmarried partner in a stable
relationship
-minor children of the applicant, on condition that they are unmarried
-when the applicant is a minor and unmarried, the father, mother or another adult responsible for
the applicant ´-    when the beneficiary of international protection is a minor and unmarried,
the father, mother or another adult responsible for him or her.

Notice that having a relative in a Member State does not make it possible for an applicant for
international protection to unite with his or her aunt, uncle or grandparent.

2. Special criteria for family members - B
´Where several family members and/or minor unmarried siblings submit applications for international
protection in the same Member State simultaneously, or on dates close enough and ´Where the
application of the criteria set out in the Regulation would lead to their being separated Þ Art. 11
A)The responsible MS is the one responsible for taking charge of the largest number of them
B)Failing this, responsibility shall lie with the MS which is responsible for examining the
application of the oldest of them

3. MS which allowed entry to the territory
A – entry based on a residence document or visa (Art. 12)
´responsible is the MS, which issued the residence document or visa to the applicant
´if the applicant is in possession of more than one valid residence document or visa
a)the MS which issued the residence document conferring the right to the longest period of
residency, where the periods od validity are identical Þ the Member State which issued the
residence document having the latest expiry date
b)the MS which issued the visa having the latest expiry date where the various visas are of the
same type
c)where visas are of different kinds, the Member State which issued the visa having the longest
period of validity or, where the periods of validity are identical, the Member State which issued
the visa having the latest expiry date
´applies also if the residence document has expired less than two years previously or where a visa
has expired less than six months previously, where the applicant has not left the territory of the
Member States
Þwhere the residence document has expired more than two years previously or the visa expired more
than six months previously, the responsible MS is where the application is lodged
´

3. MS which allowed entry to the territory
B – irregular entry and/or stay (Art. 13)
´Where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence
´      (Art. 22/3) that
´an applicant has irregularly crossed the border into a MS by land, sea or air having come from a
third country, ´the MS thus entered shall be responsible for examining the application for
international protection. ´! That responsibility ceases 12 months after the date of the irregular
border crossing.
´

3. MS which allowed entry to the territory
C – visa waived entry
´where the applicant enters into the territory of the MS in which the need for him or her to have a
visa is waived Þ that MS shall be responsible ´however, if the third-country national lodges
his/her application in another MS in which the need for him to have a visa for entry into the
territory is also waived Þ that other MS is responsible
´

4. Application lodged in an international transit area of an airport
´Where the application for international protection is made in the international transit area of an
airport of a MS Þ that MS is responsible for examining the application
´

5. The residual criterion
´Where no MS responsible can be designated on the basis of the criteria listed in the Dublin III
Regulation, the first MS in which the application is lodged is responsible for examining it (Art.
3/2)

+ Dependent persons
´Article 16
´on account of pregnancy, za new-born child, serious illness severe disability or old age
´dependent on the assistance of his or her child, sibling or parent
´legally resident in one of the MS
´or his or her child, sibling or parent legally resident in one of the MS is dependent on the
assistance of the applicant
´The MS shall keep or bring together the applicant with that child, sibling or parent
´provided that family ties existed in the country of origin
´that the child, sibling or parent or the applicant is able to take care of the dependent person
´the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing
´

Discretionary clauses
´Art. 17/1 Dublin III:  each MS may decide to examine an application for international protection
lodged with it by a third-country national or a stateless person, even if another MS would be
responsible under the criteria laid down in the Dublin III Regulationou
´
´
´Humanitarian clause
´Art. 17/2 Dublin III: each MS in which an application is lodged may request another MS to take
charge of an applicant in order to bring together any family relations, on humanitarian grounds
based in particular on family and cultural considerations, even where that other MS is not
responsible under the criteria laid down in the Dublin III Regulation

Statistics in the Czech Republic
RECEIVED REQUESTS
SENT REQUESTS
TRANSFERS
to the Czech Republic
TRANSFERS from the Czech Republic
2016
1882
507
166
124
2017
2010
264
420
94
2018
1191
318
325
90
2019
1412
401
286
84

Once an application is lodged by a third-country national or a stateless person, the process of
determining the responsible MS starts. Chapter VI of the Dublin III Regulation lays down the
conditions for the procedure of submitting a request to take charge of the applicant (if the
applicant has not yet lodged an application in the responsible MS) or a request to take back (the
applicant has already made an application in the responsible state).
You can see the numbers of received and sent requests by the Czech Ministry of the Interior and the
number of actual transfers to and from the Czech Republic. As you can see, only a fraction of all
received or sent requests results in the transfer of the applicant for international protection.
This is one of the reasons why the Dublin system is often criticized.

Question: Is a refugee pursuant to the Dublin III Regulation obliged to apply for international
protection in the Member State of entry?
•NO
•The Dublin III Regulation establishes the criteria and mechanisms for determining the MS
responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the MS
•The Dublin III Regulation does not oblige applicants for international protection to make an
application in the MS of first entry, however that does not mean that an applicant cannot be sent
back to the MS of first entry (where Art. 13 applies)
•! The proposal of the Dublin IV Regulation COM(2016)270 enlists the obligations of the applicants
in its Article 4 (besides others to make an application in the MS where legally present or in the
MS where entered into irregularly) + in Art. 5 enlists the consequences of non-compliance)
•
•
´

In the Dublin III Regulation, there is no obligation for an applicant for international protection
to make the application in the responsible MS. That is simply because applicants for international
protection are rarely in a position to learn about their obligations before they make an
application. Once they apply for international protection, they have access to more information as
well as to legal aid.
It was presented in the proposal of the Dublin IV Regulation, however this proposal has up until
now undergone significant changes in the legislative procedure.

M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece
European Court of Human Rights
´Judgment from  21 January 2011
´The case concerned an applicant for international protection from Afghanistan, who arrived to
Greece and traveled further to Belgium, where he made an application for international protection
´The European Court of Human Rights held that both Greece and Belgium breached their human rights
obligations under
´the European Convention on Human Rights
´Greece:
-conditions of detention (degrading treatment),  unacceptable living conditions on the street –
-deficiencies in the asylum procedure in the applicant’s case and risk of his expulsion to
Afghanistan without any serious examination of the merits of his asylum application and without any
access to an effective remedy
´Belgium:
-by sending the applicant back to Greece, the Belgian authorities exposed him to risks linked to
the deficiencies in the asylum procedure there
-there was no effective remedy against the transfer available to the applicant
´
´Dublin’s Trap
´Grand Chamber hearing

I advise you to watch the documentary (Dublin’s Trap), which describes the situation at the time in
Greece and describes the case. If you are interested, you can watch the Grand Chamber hearing in
the case. It is a 3-hour long hearing, so if you want to save time, I advise you to peek into
UNHCR’s assessment of the Greek asylum system (starts approximately at 1:58:20).
As a consequence to this judgment, no transfers were carried out to Greece under the Dublin II and
later Dublin III Regulation for a number of years and transfers to Greece have so far not resumed
(transfers to Greece are still rare in the EU). In 2019 he Czech Republic sent 16 requests to
Greece, but no transfer was carried out.  Furthermore, the Dublin III Regulation enlists a rule for
determining the responsible MS where it is impossible to transfer the applicant due to systemic
flaws in the asylum procedure or in the reception conditions for applicants in the primarily
designated MS.

Main shortcomings of the Dublin system
´disproportionate distribution of applications for international protection in the Member States
´contrary with UNHCR’s recommodation it does not take into account, in which MS the applicant would
prefer to make his or her application ´only a small number of requests to take back or take charge
of the applicant result in transfer

Further sources:
´European Parliament – Dublin regulation on international protection applications
´European Asylum Support Office – Annual Report 2018, 2.6. Dublin system

Efforts for a fair distribution of applications for international protection
´Council Decision (EU) 2015/1523 of 14 September 2015 and Council Decision (EU) 2015/1601 of 22
September 2015
´
´Establish provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy
and of Greece due to an emergency situation of sudden inflow of third-country nationals in 2015
´Requested the relocation of 40 000 persons in clear need of international protection (Council
Decision 2015/1523) and  relocation of 120 000 persons in clear need of international protection
(Council Decision 2015/1601) from Greece and Italy)

Efforts for a fair distribution of applications for international protection
´Council Decision (EU) 2015/1523 of 14 September 2015 and Council Decision (EU) 2015/1601 of 22
September 2015
´Hungary (C-647/15) and Slovakia (C-643/15) lodged an action against these Council Decisions with
the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU – the cases were joined and the CJEU dismissed the
action on 6 September 2017
´In 2017, the EU Commission brought actions against the Czech Republic (C-719/17), Hungary
(C-718/17) and Poland (C-715/17) for failure to comply with the Council Decision (failure to
relocate the assigned numbers of persons in clear need of international protection from Greece and
Italy) – no final judgment has been issued by the CJEU yet
´

Reform of the Dublin System?
´In the proposal of the Dublin IV Regulation, the Commission proposed a corrective allocation
mechanism, which would be triggered automatically when a MS received disproportionate numbers of
applications for international protection ´If a MS refused to accept the applicant for
international protection, a “solidarity contribution” would have to be made instead. ´Reaching an
agreement on the distribution of asylum-seekers seems to be one of the main reasons, why the Dublin
IV Regulation is still undergoing the legislative procedure.

Thank you!
´In case of any questions or need for further information or clarification, contact me via e-mail
at:
´
´beata@mail.muni.cz or beata.szakacsova@ochrance.cz