The European Court in Luxembourg confirmed the rules for granting asylum in the EU that were in effect before 2015
As "Russkaya Germaniya" notes, it is absolutely clear that the EU legislative act adopted back in 2013, called "Dublin III," which prescribes that asylum applications be considered in the country through which the illegal migrant first entered the territory of the European Union, was not working.
German politicians admitted that the Dublin agreements were indeed not working at that time due to an "emergency situation." However, as stated in Berlin, these legislative rules should work again after the refugee crisis ends. Last week, this position was confirmed by the judges of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg – the highest judicial instance of the European Union, whose decisions cannot be appealed.
The court considered specific claims of one Syrian citizen and two Afghan families who crossed the territory of Croatia in 2015 and 2016, heading to other EU states. The Croatian authorities organized the transport of refugees to Slovenia "for humanitarian reasons." The Syrian filed an asylum application there, while the Afghan families traveled further to Austria, where they submitted corresponding requests for refugee status. In turn, both Slovenian and Austrian authorities refused to accept these applications and returned the refugees back to Croatia, pointing to illegal border crossing. However, the refugees claimed they arrived in Austria and Slovenia legally, as the Croatian authorities helped them with the trip.
According to the European Court, Vienna and Ljubljana acted absolutely correctly, as they adhered to the provisions of the "Dublin III" regulation. It is Croatia, which first received the refugees on its territory, that should consider their asylum applications. Does this mean that all refugees should now be returned to the border countries of the EU? "No, it does not," the Luxembourg judges assert. In this case, an exception is made based on the principles of humanism.
Furthermore, the ECJ confirmed the need to comply with the deadlines for considering asylum. The case concerned an Eritrean citizen who, having arrived by sea in Italy, reached Germany, where he filed his application. The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) considered the Eritrean's application only a year later and ordered his deportation back to Italy. In this case, the European Court sided with the refugee, emphasizing that his application should have been considered by the German migration authorities within three months.
Simultaneously with the landmark ECJ rulings, the court's Advocate General Yves Bot recommended that the judges reject the claims of Slovakia and Hungary, which do not wish to participate in the distribution of refugees among EU countries. According to the lawyer, the agreement is "effective" and "proportionate," as it helps Greece and Italy cope with the influx of refugees. At the same time, the arguments of Bratislava and Budapest, who claimed they were initially against opening borders for refugees and voted against in September 2015, were not taken into account.