Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial
SM applied for asylum in Greece in December 2017. He informed the authorities that his wife had been granted asylum and was living in Sweden. The Greek authorities asked Sweden to take over the responsibility for processing SM’s asylum application in accordance with article 9 of the Dublin Regulation. The Swedish Migration Agency decided to not accept the proposed transfer of responsibility for SM’s asylum case. SM appealed the decision to the Migration Court where he claimed that the court should affirm that his application for international protection should be processed in Sweden. He argued that the individual’s right to family reunification must be given the highest priority when implementing the Dublin Regulation. The Migration Court dismissed the appeal with the following arguments: according to article 27.1 in the Dublin Regulation a person shall have the right to an effective remedy, in the form of an appeal or a review, in fact and in law, against a transfer decision. In this case, however, there was no transfer decision to appeal. The court states that the Swedish Migration Agency´s answer to Greek authorities, on their question to take over SM, cannot be seen as a official transfer decision. Consequently, the formulation of article 27.1 in the Dublin Regulation cannot give
SM the right to appeal, because in this case, there is no decision. Regarding SM´s reference to his right to family reunification, the court argues that this decision does not mean that SM cannot appeal for family reunification on other grounds. SM appealed the Migration Court’s decision to the Migration Court of Appeal. In his appeal he, once again, claimed that the court should affirm that his application for international protection should be examined in Sweden. He also claimed that the court should ask for a preliminary ruling by the European Court of Justice. Regarding his right to family reunification he argues that the Dublin Regulation, itself, gives access to such a right and that it therefore should be enough to refer to the Dublin Regulation.
First of all, the Migration Court of Appeal considered that the question of how to interpret Union law in this case is so obvious that there is no reason to ask the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. The claim for such a preliminary ruling was therefore rejected. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal stated that recital 19 in the preamble of the Dublin Regulation, indeed, refers to the right to an effective remedy “in respect of decisions regarding transfer” decisions. However, the Court argued that the decision by an authority in a member state to not agree to take over the responsibility for an asylum applicant, cannot be a decision regarding a transfer since no transfer decision has been made.
The Court argued that a decision to not take over the responsibility of an asylum applicant primarily affects the states involved. It does not directly affect the individual in such a way that to deny a transfer could be considered a violation of his/her fundamental rights and freedoms under Union law. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal since SM had no right to appeal the Swedish Migration Agency's decision on the basis of Article 47 of the EU Charter. The Migration Court of Appeal does not at all consider the question of SM´s right to family reunification. The Charter is not mentioned in the Court’s argumentation and the case solely focuses on whether SM had the right to appeal or not.
The access to an effective remedy cannot be denied on grounds of that the Dublin Regulation does not specifically give access to such a right. This would be to reverse the hierarchy between EU primary law (Article 47 of the Charter) and secondary law (Dublin Regulation).
A decision not to agree to take over the responsibility of an asylum seeker primarily affects the states involved and not the individual directly in such a way that it could be a violation of his/her fundamental rights and freedoms under Union law. There is therefore no right for SM to appeal against the Swedish Migration Agency's decision on the basis of Article 47 of the EU Charter of Rights.
Tillgången till ett effektivt rättsmedel kan inte nekas med hänvisning till att Dublinförordningen inte uttryckligen uppställer någon sådan rättighet. Detta skulle vara att omkullkasta hierarkin mellan EU-rättens primärrätt (artikel 47 i EU:s stadga för de grundläggande rättigheterna, EU:s rättighetsstadga) och sekundärrätt (Dublinförordningen).
EU-rätten är till skillnad från svensk rätt inte alltid explicit i vilka rättigheter den ger, utan bör tolkas som en helhet utifrån grundläggande principer såsom de uppställs i EU:s rättighetsstadga. Migrationsdomstolens resonemang
angående att klagandens rätt till familjeliv skulle tillgodoses genom familjeåterföreningsdirektivet måste anses vara irrelevant i sammanhanget. Dublinförordningen ger en självständig rätt till familjeåterförening.
I skälen till Dublinförordningen slås fast att för att garantera ett effektivt skydd av den berörda individens rättigheter är det viktigt att fastställa rättssäkerhetsgarantier och rätten till ett effektivt rättsmedel i samband med beslut om överföring till den ansvariga medlemsstaten, särskilt i enlighet med artikel 47 i Europeiska unionens stadga om de grundläggande rättigheterna.
Ett beslut att inte samtycka till att ta över ansvaret för en asylsökande berör vidare i första hand de inblandade staterna och inte den enskilde direkt på ett sådant sätt att det skulle kunna vara fråga om en kränkning av dennes unionsrättsligt garanterade fri- och rättigheter. Någon rätt för SM att överklaga Migrationsverkets beslut med stöd av artikel 47 i EU:s rättighetsstadga finns därför inte heller.