Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Sweden
Country of Decision : Sweden
Court Name : SE: Migration Court of Appeal [Migrationsöverdomstolen]
Date of decision : 26/02/2020
Type : Judgment
ECLI :
Case Number/Citation/ Document Symbol : ME 2020: 4

Applicant v Swedish Migration Agency (Migrationsverket)

SE: Migration Court of Appeal ruled that a decision to refuse to take responsibility for an asylum application cannot be appealed

According to the ELENA Weekly Legal Updates:

The applicant, after making an asylum application in Greece in 2017, notified the authorities that his wife was already a beneficiary of international protection in Sweden. His request that Sweden take responsibility for his asylum application pursuant to Article 9 Dublin III as a family member of a beneficiary of international protection was refused by the Migration Board. The applicant argued, inter alia, that family unity must be given a high priority. The Stockholm Administrative Court rejected his appeal on the grounds that, inter alia, Article 27(1) Dublin III grants the right to an effective remedy only in circumstances involving a transfer decision. It added that while the applicant does not have the right to review the decision, they are not deprived of the opportunity to apply for family reunification.

On appeal, the Migration Court noted, indeed, that Article 27(1) expressly provides asylum applicants the right to an effective remedy in the event of a transfer decision. It added that a decision made by a competent authority in a Member State which refuses to take responsibility for an asylum application of a family member who has obtained international protection in another EU State cannot be considered equivalent to a transfer decision. Moreover, the Court noted that a decision not to agree to take responsibility for an asylum seeker affects the Member States involved more so than the individual directly. The Migration Court therefore ruled that it was not necessary to seek a preliminary ruling from the CJEU and held that the decision rejecting the applicant’s request was not open to appeal. 

Dublin procedure; Effective remedy; Family Reunification; Second Instance determination;

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);

EASO IDS

Sweden, Migration Court of Appeal [Migrationsöverdomstolen] , Applicant v Swedish Migration Agency (Migrationsverket), ME 2020: 4, 26 February 2020. Link redirects to the English summary in the EASO Case Law Database.

https://caselaw.easo.europa.eu/pages/viewcaselaw.aspx?CaseLawID=1192