Key facts of the case:
The European Union has harmonised both the procedures (2) and substantive rules of refugee law, (3) thereby establishing a complete body of rules law within the Common European Asylum System. It is founded on respect for relevant rules of international law, including the principle of non‑refoulement. It restricts examination of an asylum application to a single Member State, and provides for transfer of the asylum seeker to the Member State responsible for processing an asylum application if asylum is sought elsewhere in the European Union. Identification of this Member State is governed by Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third country national
Results (sanctions) and key consequences of the case:
Asylum seekers do not have an enforceable claim to compel an identified Member State to examine their applications for asylum in accordance with the first sentence of Article 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third‑country national. However, a national court that cannot be unaware that systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions of asylum seekers in the Member State responsible under Regulation No 343/2003 amount to substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union is, within the context of application of Article 19(2) of that regulation, obliged to suspend the transfer of asylum seekers to that Member State.
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter:
38, 43-44, 49, 77-81