User:Michaelasabbag/Dublin Regulation

Case of Tarakhel vs. Switzerland
A Grand Chamber judgment in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that the Dublin Regulation had the potential to undermine individual rights and safeties of refugees. Golajan and Maryam Tarakhel fled Iran to Italy with their six children. After leaving Italy’s reception center in Bari without permission, the family applied for asylum in first Austria and then Switzerland, but both countries applied for a transfer of control to the Italian authorities under the sovereignty clause in Article 3 of the Dublin Regulation, which allows countries to outsource application examinations. Tarakhel then went to talk to the Federal Migration Office to request Swiss asylum, but the office concluded that under the Dublin Regulation, Italy was responsible for deciding their case. The Tarakhel family appealed under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, saying that they would be subject to “inhuman and degrading treatment” should they be forced to return to Italy due to their “systemic deficiencies” in asylum management. They claimed that when taken in conjunction with Article 3, their rights under Article 13 of the Convention, which gives right to an effective remedy, are violated because the Swiss government did not take into account their situation as a family. In 2013, over 14,000 asylum application had been made to Italy for only 9,630 places. Since the Swiss Court did not have to ensure safe reception of the eight person family unit under the Dublin Regulation, the court found that there was plausible reason for the family to fear for their treatment in Italy. Additionally, the court believed that the presence of children, a “particularly underprivileged and vulnerable” demographic, meant that the governments should be even more careful in ensuring safe reception across borders. Their complaint under Article 13 was found to be manifestly ill-founded. The Grand Chamber concluded in a 14-3 decision that Switzerland must ensure safe asylum before deportation.

Switzerland is not a part of the European Union, but it did sign into the Schengen Zone, making it subject to the laws outlined in the Dublin Regulation. The Dublin Regulation, however, still upholds some aspects of EU Law. Since Switzerland also signed into the Council of Europe, they are beholden to the judgements of the ECHR. Therefore, the ECHR had to apply laws from the EU to a country that is not a part of the EU. In the dissenting opinion from the chamber judges, they write that it is outside of the scope of Swiss responsibilities to protect against potential future unsafe treatment, and they insist on instead putting any future burden on Italy. Their unclear assignment of blame exposes some discrepancies in the Convention of Human Rights as well as the Dublin Regulation.