You are here:

Portugal / South Administrative Central Court / 670/19.6BELSB

Natural person v. Ministry of the Interior/Immigration and Borders Service

Deciding Body type:
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding Body:
South Administrative Central Court
Decision date:
Key facts of the case:
On 18/01/2018, the applicant submitted a request for international protection to the Immigration and Borders Service. Law 27/2008 of 30 June (Asylum Law), amended by Law 26/2014 of 5 May, establishes the conditions and procedures for granting asylum or international protection and Regulation (EU) 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishes the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person. While analysing the request, the Immigration and Borders Service found that the applicant had already submitted other requests for international protection in Germany and the Netherlands, but both countries refused to receive the applicant arguing that he entered the Schengen space with a visa issued by Poland. Following the acceptance by Poland, on 13/03/2019, the Immigration and Borders Service determined the transfer of the applicant to this country. The applicant argues that he was never informed, by the Immigration and Borders Service, or heard about this possibility and, thus, there was a violation of his right to be heard. In addition, the court considered that the Immigration and Borders Service did not fully counter the allegation of the applicant regarding the possibility that these countries could return him/her to his/her country of origin and the potential risk that this will entail for the applicant and his/her family (Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights).
Key legal question raised by the Court:
The South Administrative Central Court had to determine if, while examining the application for international protection, the Immigration and Borders Service fulfilled the duty to hear the applicant and assessed the possibility of the applicant being returned to his country of origin by Poland.
Outcome of the case:
The South Administrative Central Court decided that there was a violation of the applicant’s right to be heard (Article 5, paragraph 6 of the Dublin Regulation) and, therefore, annulled the decision of the Immigration and Borders Service to transfer the applicant to Poland.