Definition and Fundamentals of the Dublin Convention
Das Dublin Convention refers to an international treaty within the European Union (EU) and some other states that regulates the responsibility of member states for the examination of asylum applications. The aim of the Convention is to prevent multiple applications for asylum (“asylum shopping”) and to ensure uniform responsibility for conducting asylum procedures. The procedure is primarily based on geographical, family, and substantive criteria, with the purpose of clearly establishing which state is responsible for processing an asylum application.
The Dublin Convention should not be confused with later developments, in particular the so-called Dublin II and Dublin III Regulations, which themselves serve the further harmonization of the European asylum system. Nevertheless, the original Dublin Convention forms the cornerstone of the current European responsibility system in asylum law.
Historical Development and Scope of Application
Origin of the Dublin Convention
The Dublin Convention was signed on June 15, 1990, in Dublin and entered into force on September 1, 1997. Initially, the signatories were exclusively the then member states of the European Economic Community (EEC) as well as Norway and Iceland. Later, the Convention was adopted by additional states or replaced or supplemented by European regulations.
Successor: The Dublin II Regulation
With the entry into force of the so-called Dublin II Regulation (EC Regulation No. 343/2003) in 2003, the Dublin Convention was largely replaced by directly applicable European secondary legislation. This took place as part of the development of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) for stronger harmonization of asylum law.
Content and Legal Structure of the Dublin Convention
Responsibility Criteria
The Dublin Convention contains comprehensive rules on determining which state is responsible for examining an asylum application. The most important criteria include:
Geographical Criteria
- First Country of Entry: As a general rule, the state into which an asylum seeker first enters or where he or she first files an asylum application is responsible for the procedure. This is tracked through existing entry and visa controls.
- Issuance of Visa: If a person entered with a visa or residence permit issued by a specific state, responsibility also lies with that state.
Family Ties
The Convention contains special provisions in favor of family reunification. Family members who have already been granted asylum in a state or are involved in an asylum procedure there may also establish responsibilities.
Procedure and Deadlines
For mutual recognition and coordination, the Convention provides deadlines for the transfer of affected individuals as well as for the processing of responsibility requests. States primarily communicate via defined information channels and standardized forms.
Rejection and Transfer Procedure
A central element of the Dublin Convention is the possibility of transferring an asylum seeker to the responsible state. If an application is filed in a non-responsible state, the nationally competent authority examines the transfer based on clearly regulated procedural steps.
Legal Framework and Implementation
Relationship to International Refugee Law
The Dublin Convention is generally in accordance with the Geneva Refugee Convention of 1951 as well as the 1967 Protocol. The prohibition of refoulement (non-refoulement) is also observed in the national implementations as a procedural principle.
Legal Protection and Remedies
Persons affected by a transfer under the Dublin Convention may appeal against the transfer decision. Depending on the national design, these may be applications for judicial review or asylum-specific remedies.
Current Importance and Development
Further Development through EU Secondary Legislation
With the entry into force of the Dublin II and Dublin III Regulations, the Dublin Convention was largely superseded by European legislation. In particular, the Dublin III Regulation (EU Regulation 604/2013) is now considered the key provision for the European responsibility regime in asylum procedures. The Dublin Convention therefore only applies today in a few specific cases, such as particular arrangements with associated third countries.
Criticism and Debate
The criteria of responsibility in the Dublin Convention and its successor regulations have been widely criticized. The focus is on issues of burden on individual member states at the EU’s external borders, human rights aspects, and practical challenges in implementing the transfer procedures.
Significance for the European Asylum System
The Dublin Convention has laid the foundation for uniform, more transparent asylum procedures in Europe. The model of assigning responsibility based on geographical and substantive criteria still constitutes a key pillar of European asylum policy and has significantly shaped the development of European asylum law.
Literature and Further Legal Sources
- Dublin Convention (Official Journal of the European Communities, C 254 of 19.08.1997)
- Dublin II Regulation (EC No. 343/2003)
- Dublin III Regulation (EU No. 604/2013)
- Geneva Refugee Convention (Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, BGBl. 1953 II, p. 559)
- Further information: European Commission – Asylum and Migration
See also
- Common European Asylum System (CEAS)
- Refugee Convention
- Non-refoulement
- Secondary Migration
This article offers a detailed overview of the term “Dublin Convention” for a legal dictionary, covering all legal aspects, its origin, development, and integration into European and international law.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is responsible under the Dublin Convention for examining an asylum application?
The responsibility for examining an asylum application is determined by the criteria set out in the Dublin Convention or the Dublin III Regulation, which is currently referenced by the Convention. Generally, the EU member state where the applicant first entered the territory of the European Union is responsible. This entry can occur, for example, through crossing the border, issuance of a visa, or illegal stay. The order of the responsibility criteria is clearly regulated: Family ties in a member state have priority. If there is no such connection, criteria such as issuance of a visa or residence permit, illegal border crossing, and longer stay in a member state follow. Responsibility regularly lapses after 12 months if a take-charge or take-back request has not been made in due time. Furthermore, there are fixed deadlines and procedural steps within the Dublin System that must be observed to effectively determine the competent member state for the asylum application and to ensure that the procedure is carried out properly.
Under what conditions can the responsible state waive the so-called right to discretionary examination (sovereignty clause)?
The Dublin Convention provides for the discretionary examination right (the so-called ‘sovereignty clause’) in Article 17 of the Dublin III Regulation. It allows any member state to examine an asylum application on the merits, even if it would not be responsible under the set criteria. This right can be exercised especially when humanitarian reasons, practical aspects, or family reunification are relevant. The exercise of the discretionary power is at the discretion of the respective member state and is not legally enforceable; neither the applicant nor other states have a legal claim to its exercise. In practice, this right is often used to address hardship cases and to avoid lengthy procedures.
What deadlines apply in Dublin procedures for the transfer of applicants?
Various deadlines exist within the Dublin Convention, which are particularly important in the event of a transfer. If a member state is determined to be responsible and accepts the request to take charge, the transfer must generally be carried out within six months. If this deadline is exceeded, responsibility for examining the asylum application transfers to the requesting (transferring) state. This period may be extended up to 18 months in exceptional cases, such as detention or absconding of the applicant. Prior to the transfer, binding deadlines also apply for submitting the take-charge or take-back request: The requesting state generally has a maximum of three months after the asylum application is lodged to submit the request. Timely compliance with these deadlines is a mandatory prerequisite for a proper Dublin procedure.
Can asylum seekers file legal action against a threatened transfer, and how is the procedure legally structured?
Yes, asylum seekers have the right to seek judicial remedy against a planned transfer to another member state. This is set out in Article 27 of the Dublin III Regulation, which stipulates that effective legal protection must be available, including the possibility of suspending the transfer until a final judicial decision has been reached. The procedure provides that the applicant may file a lawsuit against the transfer decision within set deadlines. The courts review not only the formal aspects of the responsibility determination but also human rights issues, particularly possible systemic deficiencies in the asylum system of the destination state (taking into account the case law of the European Court of Human Rights). Such deficiencies may be a sufficient reason for an unlawful transfer and oblige the responsible state to examine the asylum application itself.
What are the legal consequences if the applicant absconds during the Dublin procedure?
If an applicant absconds during the Dublin procedure, meaning he or she escapes from the authorities and cannot be located, this results in a change to the transfer deadlines. The maximum period is extended from six to up to 18 months. After this period, responsibility for examining the asylum application transfers to the state requesting the transfer. Additionally, absconding may be interpreted negatively regarding the applicant’s credibility and willingness to cooperate, potentially affecting future proceedings. Nevertheless, protection standards and minimum human rights requirements still apply even to absconding individuals, and fundamental rights cannot be suspended.
How are family ties and minors treated under the Dublin Convention?
The Dublin Convention attaches particular importance to considering family ties. Especially in the case of unaccompanied minor refugees, the best interests of the child must take priority. If a family member who has been granted protection status is staying in another member state of the Dublin area, under certain conditions that state may become responsible for the child’s – or the family’s – asylum application (family reunification). The legal framework requires member states to take all appropriate measures to maintain family unity, including active information exchange and, where applicable, the use of exemptions. Decisions must always be guided by the best interests of the child, as required by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
