High Court of Ireland

Zitieren als:
High Court of Ireland, Entscheidung vom 11.10.2010 - E. & anor/MJELR & anor, 2010 No. 131 J.R. u.a. - asyl.net: M17942

Vorlage an den EuGH mit den folgenden Fragen:

1. Ist der im Rahmen der Dublin II-VO überstellende Mitgliedstaat verpflichtet, die Gewährung der Rechte aus Art. 18 GR-Charta, der Aufnahmerichtlinie (2003/9/EG), der Qualifikationsrichtlinie (2004/83/EG) und der Verfahrensrichtlinie (2005/85/EG) durch den ersuchten Mitgliedstaat zu berücksichtigen?

2. Sofern dies bejaht wird und sich herausstellt, dass der ersuchte Mitgliedstaat die Rechte aus einer oder mehrerer dieser Bestimmungen nicht gewährt, hat der ersuchende Mitgliedstaat dann den Selbsteintritt nach Art. 3 Abs. 2 Dublin II-VO auszuüben?

Schlagwörter: Dublin II-VO, Dublinverfahren, Griechenland, Selbsteintritt, Vorabentscheidungsverfahren, EuGH
Normen: VO 343/2003 Art. 3 Abs. 2, EMRK Art. 3, VO 343/2003 Art. 18 Abs. 7, GR-Charta Art. 18

Reference for a Preliminary Ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union

(1) Subject Matter of the Dispute

1. This is the third occasion where similar issues have arisen for adjudication in the High Court of Ireland relating to the transfer of asylum seekers under the terms of Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003 ("The Dublin Regulation"). This current series of five cases shares common features with 32 other pending cases relating to the scope of the discretion afforded to Member States under Article 3 (2.) of the Regulation.

2. Each of the claimants, who have no connection with each other, travelled through Greece and was arrested there for illegal entry. They are all adult men and do not claim any particular vulnerability or disability. Each claimant left Greece and travelled to Ireland where he applied for asylum. Three of the claimants sought asylum without disclosing their previous presence in Greek territory while the remaining two claimants admitted their previous presence in Greece (Mr M.E. and Mr A.S.M. both immediately disclosed their stay in Greece). The EURODAC system confirmed that all five claimants had previously entered Greek territory but that none of them had sought asylum there.

3. In the specific five cases before this Court the claimants claim to be from Afghanistan, Iran and Algeria (Mr M.E., Mr. A.S.M. and Mr. E.H. claim to be from Afghanistan, Mr M.T. from Algeria and Mr K.P. from Iran). Each of the claimants resists return to Greece. However, no claim is made that the transfer of the claimants to Greece under the Dublin Regulation would breach of Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights by reason of potential refoulement, chain refoulement, ill-treatment or interrupted asylum claims (with one exception: Mr E.H. claimed that all those detained in Greece were beaten by the police. It is accepted however that no issue arises as to a breach of Article 3 of the ECHR). Neither is it alleged that the transfer would breach any other Article of that Convention. The claimants argue that there are inadequate procedures and conditions for asylum seekers in Greece and so, Ireland is obliged to exercise its discretion under Article 3 (2) of the Dublin Regulation ("the sovereignty clause") to accept responsibility for examining and determining their asylum applications.

(6) The Questions

30. The Court respectfully requests a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union on the following questions which are predicted on the assumption that the transfer of the claimants raises no issues under Article 3 ECHR:

(1) Is the transferring Member State under Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003 obliged to assess the compliance of the receiving Member State with Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the EU, Council Directives 2003/9/EC, 2004/83/EC and 2005/85/EC and Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003?

(2) If the answer is yes, and if the receiving Member State is found not to be in compliance with one or more of those provisions, is the transferring Member State obliged to accept responsibility for examining the application under Article 3 (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003?

31. The interpretation of Article 3 (2) in the light of the answers to those questions is an issue of law the resolution of which is essential to the Court's determination of the five test proceedings and those of the 32 known dependent and other cases not yet identified. The Court considers it necessary to seek a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver its judgment.