The Dublin procedure establishes which Member State is responsible for examining an asylum application. If that is another Member State, the claim is not examined on its merits in the Netherlands and a transfer follows.
Legal basis
Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, the Dublin Regulation, sets out the criteria in a fixed hierarchy: first family links and the position of minors, then a visa or residence permit issued earlier, then irregular entry, and only then the country where the application was lodged. Evidence often comes from Eurodac, the European fingerprint database. Article 3(2) prohibits transfer where the receiving Member State has systemic flaws in its asylum procedure and reception conditions amounting to inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 4 of the Charter. In Jawo and Ibrahim the Court of Justice held that conditions after protection is granted must also be considered. Article 17 gives Member States a discretionary power to examine a claim themselves. The transfer period is six months, extendable to eighteen where the applicant absconds.
How it works in practice
The defence usually focuses on two points: mutual trust between states, invoking reports about reception conditions in the responsible Member State, and family links, which can shift responsibility to the Netherlands. A medical situation can also bar transfer. If the transfer period expires, the Netherlands becomes responsible after all; monitoring that period is therefore a standard part of the case.
Where it goes wrong
Applicants rely on general reports about the other Member State without relating them to their own position. A second error is failing to mention family members in the Netherlands at the first interview. Third, absconding is seen as a way out, when it in fact extends the transfer period.
Related terms
The procedure belongs with the asylum residence permit, and connects to immigration detention and the return decision.
Is a Dublin transfer looming? Our immigration lawyers conduct the appeal and monitor the deadlines.
