Talk:Dublin Regulation

Untitled
I have permission from the copyright holder. The page just needs a reference to the website.


 * Hi, Parmaestro. Are they releasing it under the GFDL or into the public domain so others can reuse it as well? Who did you contact? When? Please see Copyrights for the policy and procedures. 68.81.231.127 09:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello Anonymous. The organisation which runs the website has assured me that they "have no objection to items on [their] website being reproduced with appropriate acknowledgment."

Am I missing something here ? We're talking about a description of an international convention !

Parmaestro 20:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Parmaestro. Text included in the Wikipedia either needs to licensed under the GFDL, released into the public domain, or qualify under fair use. A vague, informal statement doesn't meet that criteria, and even if permission is given, that must be specifically documented. See Copyrights for details. A more enduring problem is that promotional material doesn't belong in the Wikipedia (though it can be an excellent source of facts for an article you write yourself). The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; our articles need to have a neutral point of view, and must be based on publically available sources. See What Wikipedia is not, and Neutral point of view. The stub you wrote on the /temp page is a good start. BTW, I have a static IP so I'm actually less anonymous than registered users. :) 68.81.231.127 21:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll help rewrite parts of it later, but I don't have time right now. 68.81.231.127 22:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Switzerland
My understand is that they're holding a referendum on the dublin convention because enough signatures (over 50,000) on a petition were gathered to force one. See http://www.euobserver.com/?sid=9&aid=18772 and http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=6204 -- Joolz 12:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I’ve to Europe from Italy and Italy government took my finger prints So my question is does that gonna be problem when came to Switzerland? Ismet turkmen 00 (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Embarrassingly biased and hopelessly low quality
This is without doubt the worst quality article I've ever seen on here. The bias inherent in the article is beyond parody. The Dublin Regulation does not prevent asylum seekers' claims from being considered. It's purpose is to identify a single member state responsible for determining a claim and in so doing improve efficiency and ensure MSs take responsibility. As an example of the comedy bias of the article take for example the suggestion that the Regulation means most asylum seekers stay in the countries (eg Greece) at the periphery of the EU. This claim does not stand up to even the most cursory examination: 90% of asylum application are lodged and determined in France, Gremany, Sweden, the UK and other 'northern' members states. The 'southern' states (like Greece) handle hardly any - and even with Dublin on get back a tiny proportion of those who pass through. The pressures on these states are caused by irregular migration flows, not by the Dublin regulation. There's no way to improve the article. The only sensible solution is to delete and start again, this time with at least a pretence of objectivity.

Hungary
There is no mention when Hungary ratified it. I mention this because recently, Hungary started to cancel some parts of the Dublin treaty, in particular about asyl seekers from Serbia. 2A02:8388:1641:C480:5C4D:1C0E:422A:9794 (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Updates needed please
Could the article be updated. There has been a huge amount of misunderstanding regarding enforcement of Dublin Regulation. Perhaps the two most notable examples are that the regulation on paper deters asylum seekers from travelling onwards from bordering EU member states such as Greece, Italy and Hungary. In reality the unofficial policy in place is to register and let the asylum seekers move onwards towards Northern Europe. Additionally the number of eligible asylum seekers who are returned to the first member state which registered them is around 20% according the the chapter called Dublin Trickery in the book by Marco Funk - at least for Italy for 2013 figures - http://www.amazon.com/Fortress-Europes-Inner-Wall-Dilemmas/dp/1514815621/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1447011427&sr=8-1&keywords=marco+funk+fortress. The reason for the low enforcement of returning Dublin cases is a combination of the administrative burden required to do so and a set period in which a applicant can be returned. A applicant who absconds during a Dublin case request has their request voided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidthebuyer (talk • contribs) 19:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Davidthebuyer (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Update needed on criticism
The differing recognition rates amongst EU member states has created what some commentators call an "asylum lottery":

"(p. 281) Discordant views on different elements of the refugee definition give rise to varying rates of refugee recognition among states, with asylum seekers subjecting their futures to what has been described as an ‘asylum lottery’.21 In relation to Afghan asylum seekers, for example, refugee recognition rates in 2011 among eight European countries ranged from 3 per cent in the Netherlands to 33 per cent in Austria. When other forms of protection such as complementary protection, subsidiary protection, and humanitarian status are included in this equation, the gap is even more drastic, ranging from 11 per cent in Greece to 73 per cent in Sweden.22 This is despite the ongoing development of a Common European Asylum System, which was set in place to ensure that any person seeking protection in Europe would be treated in the same way irrespective of where they apply. Despite some positive progress towards this goal, a 2010 evaluation of the implementation of the European Qualification Directive found that ‘the objective of creating a level playing field with respect to the qualification and status of beneficiaries of international protection and to the content of the protection granted has not been fully achieved during the first phase of harmonization.’23" From http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199652433.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199652433-e-024

A broader view of this is shown in the Economist article:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/09/daily-chart — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidthebuyer (talk • contribs) 20:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Update needed on criticism
The differing recognition rates amongst EU member states has created what some commentators call an "asylum lottery":

"(p. 281) Discordant views on different elements of the refugee definition give rise to varying rates of refugee recognition among states, with asylum seekers subjecting their futures to what has been described as an ‘asylum lottery’.21 In relation to Afghan asylum seekers, for example, refugee recognition rates in 2011 among eight European countries ranged from 3 per cent in the Netherlands to 33 per cent in Austria. When other forms of protection such as complementary protection, subsidiary protection, and humanitarian status are included in this equation, the gap is even more drastic, ranging from 11 per cent in Greece to 73 per cent in Sweden.22 This is despite the ongoing development of a Common European Asylum System, which was set in place to ensure that any person seeking protection in Europe would be treated in the same way irrespective of where they apply. Despite some positive progress towards this goal, a 2010 evaluation of the implementation of the European Qualification Directive found that ‘the objective of creating a level playing field with respect to the qualification and status of beneficiaries of international protection and to the content of the protection granted has not been fully achieved during the first phase of harmonization.’23" From http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199652433.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199652433-e-024

A broader view of this is shown in the Economist article:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/09/daily-chart — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidthebuyer (talk • contribs) 20:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)  Davidthebuyer (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Dublin Regulation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140222012517/http://ceciliawikstrom.eu/en/politik/migration-och-asyl/dublinforordningen/ to http://ceciliawikstrom.eu/en/politik/migration-och-asyl/dublinforordningen/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

What Sovereignity Clause?
Germany started accepting refugees it was not responsible for under the Dublin Accords. The article says it did so under a 'Sovereignty clause'. What is that? There is no reference in the article. Also, mention should be made of the perception by some that Germany was unilaterally breaking the Accords, and the German response to the accusation. 77.69.34.203 (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Dublin Regulation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101112181343/http://commissioner.cws.coe.int/tiki-view_blog_post.php?postId=80 to http://commissioner.cws.coe.int/tiki-view_blog_post.php?postId=80
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928170557/http://www.ecre.org/component/content/article/41-protection-in-europe/10-dublin-regulation.html to http://www.ecre.org/component/content/article/41-protection-in-europe/10-dublin-regulation.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Germany no longer checking Eurodac as a consequence of Dublin III interruption (by Germany)
Hello, an editor deleted the following WP:RS and labeled it as "offtopic", when the WP:RS itself makes the case:  "He would then have to be returned there in accordance with the Dublin III procedure. But since Germany does not return to Greece, Hussein K. could enter." . This quote is regarding the  murderer of Maria Ladenburger, who was able to apply for asylum in Germany in 2015 despite having already applied in Greece in 2013. Can we discuss if this is off topic if the WP:RS itself mentions what happens when Dublin III is no longer in force? Thanks! XavierItzm (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It certainly is not totally off topic but listing all cases here where the Dublin agreement may have failed or not would just make the article totally unreadable. It would make much more sense to address possible shortcomings and failures in a more general way than listing one particular rape case here where it is at the moment not even totally clear yet what actually happened with regard to Eurodac and Dublin proceedings.LucLeTruc (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that listing every instance of Eurodac failure caused by unilateral Dublin III abrogation would render the article unreadable... if we had many reports of failure. Alas!, presently there is only one case reported by the WP:RS and therefore it is not incorrect to keep to the sources and include it here.  If, as you fear, we get a dozen or more, and the article starts to become unreadable, then we should at that point consider trimming and pruning as suitable, to avoid unreadability.  XavierItzm (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, we have had a user delete material directly sourced from a WP:RS for the following reason: "This paragraph was based on a big misconception and serves an agenda.People applying for asylum in more that one country was happening before the suspension of the Dublin III regulation." Could the editor please clarify what the misconception is.  In the meantime, I have reverted the edit and invited discussion here in the TP. Thanks in advance.  XavierItzm (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Its WP:COATRACKING and WP:UNDUE. All the 800 000 refugees who arrived in Germany last year arrived due to this suspension of the Dublin agreement and this is already covered in the article. So mentioning this here gives WP:UNDUE undue weight to one isolated case.LucLeTruc (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, I was the user who deleted this point. I was initially thinking of editing the paragraph, but in fact I could not find a correct way to approach it, since the relation between the suspension of Dublin convention and this murder is not linear. First of all, as it was mentioned by LucLeTruc it is one isolated case and therefore should not qualify as an effect. Despite the fact that the reference states so, it establishes a relationship between the two events they are in fact not related. Before the suspension of Dublin Regulation, it was already common for the German authorities (as Finnish, Swedish, etc) not to return asylum seekers to Greece, considering the country had no conditions to receive them. Asylum Seekers were entering Germany despite the Dublin Convention, and Hussein K. would have entered either way Germany. The misconception is that the Dublin III regulation was actually enforced and put into practice before its suspension, and that its suspension has changed legislation to the point that it permitted a murder. This legislation is complex and oversimplifying it to establish a cause-effect correlation with a murder is an action that should not find a place in an encyclopedia. It is just as valid to say that the murder is an effect of the 1951 asylum convention, or the whole European policy on asylum. Also the paragraph was poorly written, treating the case in a subjective manner and failing to demonstrate how the two things were related. Still, I understand that this point may be relevant and important for many people, but it was not the correctly formulated. Maybe, if instead of effect, one can change the headline to criticism on the partial suspension and restrain from a cause-effect formulation, it will be more acceptable. Maybe the point should reflect on how the suspension threatens national security as it can be exemplified by this murder case. Nmp.escudeiro (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.165.24.41 (talk)
 * Good points. The article has been edited accordingly.  Let's see if consensus can be reached while respecting the WP:RS. XavierItzm (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the mentioning of the Murder of Maria Ladenburger case
Should the Murder of Maria Ladenburger and the surrounding arguments be mentioned here on the side regarding the Dublin agreement? LucLeTruc (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments

 * NB Disputed text is hers Pincrete (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Remove because it is WP:COATRACKING and WP:UNDUE. The huge majority of the 800 000 refugees who arrived in Germany last year arrived due to this suspension of the Dublin agreement (without this suspension only the few thousand refugees coming by plane could legally apply for asylum in Germany) and this is already covered in the article. So mentioning this here gives WP:UNDUE weight to one isolated case just because this person happened to commit a crime. The only political aspect of this particular crime case is the fact that he already commited crimes in Greece without the German authories knowing this when he applied for asylum because his info was not in Interpol but this has nothing to do with the Dublin agreement. Hence, the whole case should not be mentioned here. LucLeTruc (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - the item comes straight from a WP:RS.XavierItzm (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * re: the item comes straight from a WP:RS, could you please show us the RS that describes the 'accused' as 'the murderer'?Pincrete (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. A very important point from WP:BLP and just a basic fairness issue.  I have made the change. XavierItzm (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Do not add - Most importantly, the content violates WP:BLP. Calling someone a "rapist/murderer" who at this point is only a suspect and has not been convicted is not permitted for legal reasons.  Additionally, see WP:BLPCRIME:"For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured."
 * At this point, this is only a suspected effect. Even if a conviction is secured, and the effect is proven, I agree with LucLeTruc that this article is not the appropriate place to cherry pick isolated cases to highlight.  Otherwise we'd need to include "effects" like this as well: Syrian Refugees Rescued a German Neo-Nazi Leader From a Car Crash.
 * If there is some broad effects (ie is there evidence that crime rate has increase and can be tied to Dublin) then I would support adding that. TDL (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Very nice technicality! Delete a whole paragraph with a good WP:RS instead of adding the word "accused" immediately before the existing text "rapist of Maria Ladenburger"....  I salute the creativity on display here.  Will amend the entry as suggested.  XavierItzm (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * BLP is most certainly not a "technically". Posting potentially libelous content on wiki exposes the project (and you personally) to potential litigation and significant financial damages.  We simply cannot allow a reckless editor to put the project at such risk.  Nor is there anything "creative" about this observation: it is very clearly a black and white BLP violation, as echoed by other editors here.  What is "creative" is your selective reading: ignoring my explanation for why the content even with "alleged" is still discouraged by policy, hence my full removal.  I strongly suggest you read the BLP policy.  Also you have still not addressed the due weigh agruments.  TDL (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Do not add Proposed text is blatant BLP violation. If a more neutral text could be proposed, it would be possible to assess what weight to give to this case. Pincrete (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The text has been amended to be more neutral, as requested.  XavierItzm (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Do not add Because it establishes a microscopic cause-effect exception, that is not relevant in the context of the the article which discusses macroscopic european legislation. It describes one isolated case and therefore should not qualify as an effect. Despite the fact that the reference states so, it establishes a relationship between the two events they are in fact not related. Before the suspension of Dublin Regulation, it was already common for the German authorities (as Finnish, Swedish, etc) not to return asylum seekers to Greece, considering the country had no conditions to receive them. Asylum Seekers were entering Germany despite the Dublin Convention, and Hussein K. would have entered either way Germany. The misconception is that the Dublin III regulation was actually enforced and put into practice before its suspension, and that its suspension has changed legislation to the point that it permitted a murder. This legislation is complex and oversimplifying it to establish a cause-effect correlation with a murder is an action that should not find a place in an encyclopedia. It is just as valid to say that the murder is an effect of the 1951 asylum convention, or the whole European policy on asylum. Also the paragraph was poorly written, treating the case in a subjective manner and failing to demonstrate how the two things were related. Still, I understand that this point may be relevant and important for many people, but it was not the correctly formulated. Maybe, if instead of effect, one can change the headline to criticism on the partial suspension and restrain from a cause-effect formulation, it will be more acceptable. Maybe the point should reflect on how the suspension threatens national security as it can be exemplified by this murder case. Nmp.escudeiro (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @Nmp.escudeiro -thank you. A very constructive comment.  I agree that one drop of snow does not a winter make.  I did not know what you quote, which is "Before the suspension of Dublin Regulation, it was already common for the German authorities (as Finnish, Swedish, etc) not to return asylum seekers to Greece".  This seems to contradict the main section "Partial suspension of the regulation during 2015 European refugee and migrant crisis," where it says: «On 24 August 2015, Germany decided to make use of the "sovereignty clause" to voluntarily assume responsibility for processing Syrian asylum applications for which it is not otherwise responsible under the criteria of the Regulation».  I say it seems to contradict because if Germany was already commonly not implementing Dublin III, then why bother making a big announcement in August 2015 that Germany unilaterally suspends it?  I seem to recall Merkel gave a big press conference on it, even.  Maybe we should revise that text?  Also, I've altered the headline as per your comment.  The idea here is to edit Wikipedia and reach a common consensus on the best way to present information, rather than just deleting stuff, so I really appreciate your approach. XavierItzm (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your modifications, Xavieritzm, are WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to the worst. As I explained to you after your additions in Syrian Civil War, you are not allowed to put your own interpretations, judgement and viewpoints in here and to strategically combine different sources to a new meaning, just to drop the link to this murder case here (as you tried in so many articles). And, more important, you really need to understand the circumstances of the events you are writing about. The fr source does not say that the case increased a wave of critizism of the Dublin suspension (this is only your POV) and the NYT source relates this growing anger to terrorist attacks and the cologne incidents. This is WP:SYNTH as its best. To help you with your understanding: The reason why the suspect was not returned back to Greece was that he did not tell authorities that he came from Greece. Germany only suspended the agreement for refugees from Syria. So, at the moment, the available sources mostly speculate about the asylum procedure of the the suspect in Germany. As long as this does not change and we have a RS that clearly writes what went wrong where, putting this case in all these asylum procedure articles is largely WP:OR. LucLeTruc (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure I agree, LucLeTruc. I think Nmp.escudeiro raised some quite valid points about the criticism to the Dublin III suspension and we have some quite specific WP:RS that cover (1) the criticism and (2) an exact quote regarding some of the things that can arise from Dublin III suspension.  XavierItzm (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, as I just tried to explain to you, neither did the murder happen because of this suspension, nor do the sources you use say this. Hence your formulation is WP:SYNTH, whether you agree with me or not. More important, we just do not know what actually happened as all sources are rather vague and contradicting with regards to the asylum procedure of the suspect. You are just trying to construct a case here by selectively picking some sources, interpreting them with your WP:POV and WP:SYNTHing them with other sources to prove your point for which Wikipedia certainly is not the place.
 * You are totally right, there are some serious issues with this whole Dublin agreement and raises some of them which should be addressed in this article. Cherrypicking isolated cases and misrepresenting the sources to demonstrate a POV here is just not the way to do this. LucLeTruc (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, let's go one by one. Do you question that Deutsche Welle reported in October 2015 that many politicians from the ruling coalition criticized the suspension of Dublin rules, "saying that many migrants would see her decision as an invitation to apply for asylum in Germany." ?   Looks pretty legit to me! XavierItzm (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you picked the only part of your addition that is not WP:SYNTHLucLeTruc (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, are there any objections to «Reports such as the Frankfurter Allgemeine of December 2016 that the Dublin III suspension may have impacted at least one criminal case, "he would then have to be returned there in accordance with the Dublin III procedure. But since Germany does not return to Greece, Hussein K. could enter" »? XavierItzm (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As i said numerous times, at the moment what the faz writes is total speculation. Authorities have not yet confirmed what actually went wrong there. According to the faz source you cite, police in Germany apparently did not know that the suspect arrived from greece so that is the main reason that they did not send him back, not the suspension of the dublin agreement. The way you put it in the article, the article falsely claims exactly this. The main reason that he was granted temporary asylum (until his 18th birthday) was most probably that he was underage and the Dublin III agreement has regulations to protect such underage minors and prevents them from beeing send back to the country of first entry. But this is all speculation and should hence not be in the article. Try to find a general source about critizizm and shortcomings of the Dublin agreement (there are plenty) and write something about general issues but leave out this particular case where it is totally unclear what actually happened. LucLeTruc (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the Frankfurter Allgemeine is not a WP:RS? Hard to believe.  Or are you saying the Frankfurter Allgemeine is usually reliable but in this particular case you don't like what the Frankfurter Allgemeine is reporting? XavierItzm (talk) 09:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Do no add per all of the above; this raises too many policy and common-sense issues. However, if controversial interplay between that case and the politics surrounding the Dublin Regulation is itself the subject of in-depth coverage in multiple major sources, it might be worth mentioning that [presently hypothetical] related controversy, as a related controversy, at this article, rather than dwelling on the case's details (it already has its own article, remember).  Even if that controversy exists, it should be covered more at the article on the case, and only be mentioned in summary here.  I would think that it would need to show a strong impact on Dublin Regulation political discourse to make it into this article at all, for the UNDUE reasons.  The BLP reasons to exclude it are fixable by copyediting, but the relevance and PoV ones are not.  — SMcCandlish' ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment., the pretty overwhelming consensus seems to be to remove the addition you added about the murder case. Can we close this RfC and delete the paragraph in the article? I really do not see a way that we can turn this stuff into something that would add useful information to the article without speculation and WP:UNDUE weight. LucLeTruc (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It does not look like SMcCandlish is addressing the current page, but a previous version. To wit, the editor says: "The BLP reasons to exclude it are fixable by copyediting".   In the current page, there are no grounds for BLP, as no names are cited.  Also, is the editor talks about a "[presently hypothetical] related controversy".  So, the quote from DW is a hypothetical controversy?  I cite from the current article: «Deutsche Welle reported in October 2015 that many politicians from the ruling coalition criticized the suspension of Dublin rules, "saying that many migrants would see her decision as an invitation to apply for asylum in Germany." » XavierItzm (talk)
 * Same situation here as in the Murder of Maria Ladenburger and the Burqa case: A big majority of editors argues against your addition, with you constantly keeping the discussion going. So, I have boiled down your content to stuff that is actually in the sources and no voilation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. In my eyes, the rest is still pretty much useless for the article but i am tired of these endless discussions. In the current version of the article, there is at least no speculation and none of your WP:POV in it anymore so i could live with this version. LucLeTruc (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent. But I think you mistakenly removed a WP:RS citation from Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung which explicitly addresses Dublin III: «"he would then have to be returned there in accordance with the Dublin III procedure. But since Germany does not return to Greece, Hussein K. could enter" »  I will be adding it back, to correct the oversight.  XavierItzm (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "In the current page, there are no grounds for BLP, as no names are cited." This is not true. You did not remove all references to his name.
 * Yes there is a real Dublin controversy, but the hypothetical controversy being referenced is one directly related to this specific case. You are trying to synthesize other controversies with this case to justify the content addition.  This, as has been explained to you, is OR.  TDL (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Endorse version written by LucLeTruc, and remain opposed to addition of content XavierItzm has been campaigning for. After nearly a month of debate, the user has still not  addressed the synthesis and due weight objections raised by a number of editors. If the user is just going to reapeat the "but the case and the Dublin regulation were mentioned in the same article!" talking point to all arguments, without addressing (or perhaps grasping?) the objections it seems of little use to continue arguing with them about it, given the clear consens against the addition.  TDL (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. You perfectly summarize this whole discussion. I personally would still remove the stripped down version which is in the article right now as in my eyes it does not add any useful information but i could live with the current version and am rather tired of this debate. So lets close this discussion. Any revert reintroducing any reference to this murder case will be boldly reverted, Xavieritzm. LucLeTruc (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dublin Regulation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322103120/http://www.ecre.org/component/content/article/134.html to http://www.ecre.org/component/content/article/134.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151223104718/http://www.ecre.org/component/downloads/downloads/112.html to http://www.ecre.org/component/downloads/downloads/112.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090324073823/http://www.ecre.org/resources/press_releases/1065 to http://www.ecre.org/resources/Press_releases/1065
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050319010056/http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/factsheets/dublinconvention4.html to http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/factsheets/dublinconvention4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Article "the" in front of "ECRE" and "UNHCR"?
The current article text includes:

"According to European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and UNHCR"

"both by ECRE and UNHCR"

"After ECRE, the UNHCR and other non-governmental organisations"

I am almost convinced standard English would have the article "the" in front of the names of these organizations [ECRE, UNHCR]. Can someone confirm this?Redav (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with you, but it is not straight forward as I would not use "the" such as NATO. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Legal Europe
— Assignment last updated by Michaelasabbag (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)