Four Syrian asylum seekers – three unaccompanied minors and one disabled adult – who had been living in the temporary refugee camp in Calais initiated asylum proceedings in the United Kingdom in order to join their family members during the examination of their applications. This ran contrary to EU Regulation 60/2013, or Dublin III, which requires asylum seekers to apply to the Member State in which they are present. That country then determines which State is responsible for processing the application, passing it on as necessary through the issuing of a ‘take charge’ request. Under Dublin III, where an unaccompanied minor has family members in another EU State, that State shall become responsible for the processing of the application.
The four applicants chose not to initiate their applications in France due to extensive delays, the inadequate conditions in the camp and the risk of the minors becoming untraceable. These concerns were supported by two amicus curiae interventions by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the AIRE Centre, a UK charity specialising in European human rights law.
The Upper Tribunal had ordered the Home Secretary to permit entry into the United Kingdom to reunite the applicants with their families in accordance with their right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Court of Appeal, however, found that the Upper Tribunal had erred in its approach to the Dublin III rules in relation to Article 8.
The Court looked to a recent decision in R (CK (Afghanistan)) v SSHD, where Lord Justice Laws established that Dublin III did not prohibit the application of rights under the ECHR, but that in order to maintain efficient operation of asylum application procedures, only “an especially compelling case under Article 8” could justify departure from its rules regarding the State responsible for processing an application. This is only the case where the applicants “can show that the system of the Member State that they wish to use, in this case the French system, is not capable of responding adequately to their needs”. The Court determined that the case at hand was unlikely to meet this threshold in order to completely bypass the initial Dublin III procedural stage on the grounds of Article 8, as to demonstrate conclusively that the French system was inadequately equipped to meet the needs of the individuals involved an application would need to have been made.
The Court unanimously allowed the appeal. However, the Secretary of State did not seek the return of the four respondents to France, accepting that the UK was the correct place for their asylum claims to be determined. The Court made no further order and refugee status has since separately been granted by the UK authorities to two of the respondents.
Click here for a previous Bulletin article on the ZAT case.
Click here for the full judgement in Secretary of State for the Home Department v ZAT (Syria) and ors (UNHCR and anor intervening).