Applicant (Afghanistan) vs Austrian Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum (Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl- BFA)
In response to a legal remedy filed against the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum, the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that, in accordance with Art 13 para 1 of the Dublin III Regulation (604/2013), the Member State whose border an individual applying for international protection had crossed irregularly is responsible for examining that application (ruling in case Ra 2017/19/0169-9 of 5 April 2018). The court furthermore ruled that this rule applied even if the individual did not apply for international protection in that Member State but instead submitted the application later in another Member State after brief voluntary travel to a third country. The Member State’s responsibility as defined in Art 13 para 1 of the Dublin III Regulation did not cease even if the person concerned departs briefly from EU territory, the court held. In the specific case, an individual had traveled via the Islamic Republic of Iran and Turkey to Bulgaria, where the person first entered EU territory. After staying in Bulgaria for two weeks, the person traveled via Serbia to Hungary and then on to Austria. The person did not apply for international protection while in Bulgaria and Hungary but only later, after arriving in Austria. The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that Bulgaria was responsible for the application.
Afghanistan; Dublin procedures;
Rechtinformationssytem des Bundes
EASO Annual Report on the Situation of Asylum in the EU
Austria,AT: Supreme Administrative Court [Verwaltungsgerichtshof - VwGH], Applicant (Afghanistan) vs Austrian Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum (Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl- BFA), 05/04/2018, ECLI:AT:VWGH:2018:RA2017190169.L09AT: Supreme Court ruled on the Art.13 (1) of the Dublin Regulation when the TCN voluntary travel to a third country.