{"id":53128,"date":"2019-05-09T15:00:49","date_gmt":"2019-05-09T13:00:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/asile.ch\/?p=53128"},"modified":"2021-08-26T13:46:46","modified_gmt":"2021-08-26T11:46:46","slug":"nccr-reglement-dublin-les-transferts-ne-peuvent-pas-reposer-sur-une-confiance-aveugle-entre-pays","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/asile.ch\/en\/2019\/05\/09\/nccr-reglement-dublin-les-transferts-ne-peuvent-pas-reposer-sur-une-confiance-aveugle-entre-pays\/","title":{"rendered":"NCCR | Transferts Dublin: \u00e9volution de la jurisprudence"},"content":{"rendered":"

Margarite Helena Zoeteweij <\/a>publie sur le blog du NCCR un article d’analyse juridique portant sur la mise en \u0153uvre des transferts selon le r\u00e8glement Dublin III et sur la responsabilit\u00e9 des \u00c9tats ordonnant les renvois. Il y a quelques ann\u00e9es, la Cour europ\u00e9enne des droits de l\u2019homme (CourEDH<\/abbr>) avait suspendu les renvois vers la Gr\u00e8ce (M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece), reconnaissant des d\u00e9faillances \u00ab\u00a0syst\u00e9miques\u00a0\u00bb dans l’accueil des demandeurs d\u2019asile et dans les proc\u00e9dures de d\u00e9termination du besoin de protection. Aujourd’hui, la jurisprudence r\u00e9cente de la Cour de justice de l\u2019Union europ\u00e9enne\u00a0Jawo v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland<\/a> \u00e9largit et consid\u00e8re que les d\u00e9faillances \u00ab\u00a0g\u00e9n\u00e9ralis\u00e9es\u00a0\u00bb en mati\u00e8re de respect des droits de l\u2019homme dans l\u2019\u00c9tat Dublin engage des obligations pour l\u2019\u00c9tat souhaitant y transf\u00e9rer un demandeur d\u2019asile. L’auteur questionne la pratique suisse de transferts vers la Bulgarie et l’Italie qui sont d\u00e9nonc\u00e9s par plusieurs ONG en relation avec des violations de droits fondamentaux et d’atteinte \u00e0 la dignit\u00e9 des personnes.<\/span><\/p>\n

L’article\u00a0 \u00ab\u00a0<\/em>Dublin Regulation: Mutual Trust… or Joint Liability<\/em><\/a> ?\u00a0\u00bb, r\u00e9dig\u00e9 par Margarite Helena Zoeteweij, a \u00e9t\u00e9 publi\u00e9 le 03.05.2019 en anglais sur le blog du National Centre of Competence in Research – The Migration-Mobility Nexus. Ci-dessous nous vous proposons un r\u00e9sum\u00e9 succinct en fran\u00e7ais, suivi de la version originale en anglais.<\/em><\/p>\n

R\u00e9sum\u00e9 fran\u00e7ais (r\u00e9dig\u00e9 par Vivre Ensemble)<\/h3>\n

Le r\u00e8glement Dublin III repose sur une confiance mutuelle entre les \u00c9tats signataires. Cela implique que les lois et accords internationaux sont bien appliqu\u00e9s par tous les \u00c9tats membres. Cependant, des \u00e9tudes montrent que certains \u00c9tats connaissent de graves d\u00e9ficiences dans l’accueil des personnes r\u00e9fugi\u00e9es et les exposent \u00e0 des violations de leurs droits fondamentaux. Tous les \u00c9tats membres ont \u00e0 cet \u00e9gard une responsabilit\u00e9 partag\u00e9e.<\/strong><\/p>\n

La Cour europ\u00e9enne des droits de l\u2019Homme a rappel\u00e9 \u00e0 plusieurs reprises que l’application du r\u00e8glement Dublin ne devait pas conduire \u00e0 ex\u00e9cuter des renvois entre ses membres avec une confiance aveugle. Les \u00c9tats qui effectuent un transfert vers un autre pays europ\u00e9en restent responsables du fait que les droits fondamentaux des personnes y soient garantis. Dans M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece <\/a>, la Belgique avait \u00e9t\u00e9 reconnue partiellement responsable de violation de l’article 3 ECHR suite \u00e0 un refoulement vers la Gr\u00e8ce, o\u00f9 les conditions d’accueil sont d\u00e9ficientes et o\u00f9 des risques d\u2019enfermement, de m\u00eame qu\u2019un renvoi vers le pays d\u2019origine, existent.<\/p>\n

La Cour europ\u00e9enne de justice a reconnu que les \u00c9tats o\u00f9 des d\u00e9faillances syst\u00e9miques de prise en charge des personnes demandant l\u2019asile sont pr\u00e9sum\u00e9es doivent rendre r\u00e9dhibitoire un renvoi. Derni\u00e8rement, ce principe s\u2019est encore renforc\u00e9 en estimant que m\u00eame des d\u00e9faillances g\u00e9n\u00e9ralis\u00e9es pouvant porter pr\u00e9judice aux droits fondamentaux des personnes devaient \u00eatre prises en compte lors d\u2019une d\u00e9cision de transfert Dublin. C\u2019est ce que la Cour de justice de l\u2019Union europ\u00e9enne vient de pr\u00e9ciser dans une d\u00e9cision Jawo v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"Bulgaria
Michel Spekkers, Visite d’un camp pour r\u00e9fugi\u00e9s en Bulgarie, Sofia 2016. (Flikr CC)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Celle-ci prescrit que lorsqu\u2019une personne s\u2019oppose \u00e0 son transfert Dublin en s\u2019appuyant sur des informations s\u00fbres et compl\u00e8tes (d’ONG locales ou internationales) prouvant que le renvoi l\u2019exposerait \u00e0 des violations de sa dignit\u00e9 et de ses droits, les autorit\u00e9s du pays exigeant le transfert sont oblig\u00e9es d’\u00e9tablir un rapport d\u00e9taill\u00e9 \u00e9tablissant la l\u00e9galit\u00e9 dudit transfert Dublin.<\/p>\n

En Suisse, si un arr\u00eat des transferts vers la Gr\u00e8ce a \u00e9t\u00e9 prononc\u00e9, ni le Secr\u00e9tariat d’Etat aux Migrations (SEM<\/abbr>) ni le Tribunal Administratif F\u00e9d\u00e9ral (TAF<\/abbr>) n\u2019ont stopp\u00e9 de mani\u00e8re globale les renvois vers la Bulgarie et l\u2019Italie. Il existe pourtant de nombreux rapports d\u2019ONG documentant les violations des droits humains relatifs \u00e0 l\u2019accueil des personnes r\u00e9fugi\u00e9es dans ces deux pays. Au regard des derni\u00e8res d\u00e9cisions de justice, auxquelles la Suisse est \u00e9galement soumise, cette derni\u00e8re devrait \u00e9tablir de mani\u00e8re approfondie si les besoins sp\u00e9cifiques des demandeurs d\u2019asile sont garantis dans ces pays de transfert.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Dublin Regulation: Mutual Trust\u2026 or Joint Liability?<\/a><\/h2>\n

The <\/strong>Dublin III Regulation<\/a><\/strong> is based on the principle of mutual trust. This means that Member States\u2019 authorities assume that European and international law is correctly applied to asylum seekers in the other Member States. Practice shows, however, that the asylum systems of some of the Dublin states are riddled with deficiencies, and that a transfer to these countries exposes the asylum seekers to violations of their rights, for which the transferring and the receiving Dublin states are jointly liable. <\/strong><\/p>\n

The Dublin Regulation presumes that all Member States are safe countries for the asylum seekers. After all, they are all party to the UN Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). For the EU Member States, this framework is specified in binding legal instruments, such as the Asylum Procedures Directive, the Qualifications Directive and the Reception Conditions Directive. These EU instruments are not legally binding on Switzerland, but Swiss law provides for comparable legal guarantees and rights. Therefore, it is natural to assume that an asylum seeker who has already lodged an asylum application in one of the Member States can be sent back to another one without further ado. However, already Article 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation acknowledges that the applicability of the same or comparable legal rules in another country does not always mean that the outcomes of legal procedures or levels of assistance and care are identical.<\/p>\n

Case Law on Mutual Liability Human Rights Infringements: ECtHR<\/strong><\/p>\n

In addition, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) warned early on that mutual trust is not the same as \u2018blind trust\u2019, and that the principle does not liberate the transferring state from its own responsibility with regard to its obligations under the ECHR. It did so in 2000 with its judgment in T.I. v. UK<\/a> in connection to a Dublin transfer to Germany, and again in 2008 in K.R.S v. UK<\/a> in connection to a Dublin transfer to Greece. Both cases were warnings that the ECtHR did not consider the Dublin Regulation as an excuse for the return of an asylum seeker to a country, in which his or her rights under the ECHR would be violated, but that it would hold both the transferring and the receiving Dublin states liable for any such violation. That is exactly what the court did later in its ruling in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece<\/a>. Whereas Greece was condemned for violating Article 3 ECHR because of the poor living conditions and the detention of asylum seekers, and for the risk of a refoulement to the country of origin of the asylum seeker, Belgium was held liable for direct and indirect refoulement for the same reasons.<\/p>\n

Case Law on Mutual Liability Human Rights Infringements: CJEU<\/strong><\/p>\n

The same line of reasoning was incorporated by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in N.S. v. SHDD<\/a>, concerning the Dublin transfer of an asylum seeker to Greece. The Court held that \u201cthe presumption underlying the Dublin mechanism that asylum seekers will be treated in a way which complies with fundamental rights must be regarded as rebuttable<\/em>\u201d. It also stated that the authorities of a Member State cannot transfer an asylum seeker to another Member State where \u201cthey cannot be unaware that systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions amount to substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment<\/em>\u201d. Whereas initially the threshold for proving the existence of \u2018systemic deficiencies\u2019 was very high, in more recent case law, the CJEU conceded that not only systemic but also deficiencies of a general nature may make a Dublin transfer incompatible with fundamental rights as guaranteed by EU law. In particular, in the recent decision of Jawo v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland<\/a>, the Court ruled that \u201cit is not however inconceivable that [the asylum-] system may, in practice, experience major operational problems in a given Member State, meaning that there is a substantial risk that applicants for international protection may, when transferred to that Member State, be treated in a manner incompatible with their fundamental rights.<\/em>\u201d It further held that \u201cwhere the court or tribunal \u2026 has available to it evidence provided by the person concerned for the purposes of establishing the existence of such a risk, that court or tribunal is obliged to assess, on the basis of information that is objective, reliable, specific and properly updated and having regard to the standard of protection of fundamental rights guaranteed by EU law, whether there are deficiencies, which may be systemic or generalized, \u2026<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

This means that, when an asylum seeker in a Dublin procedure appeals against the transfer, arguing on the basis of reliable and objective information \u2013 for example, the information provided by local or international NGOs \u2013 that he will receive an inhuman or degrading treatment in the responsible Member State, the transferring Member State\u2019s authorities are under the obligation to make a detailed assessment of the situation in the responsible Member in order to evaluate the legality of a Dublin transfer. This is a further limitation to the principle of mutual trust, and a step closer to joint liability under the Dublin Regulation.<\/p>\n

Case Law on Mutual Liability Human Rights Infringements: Committee Against Torture<\/strong><\/p>\n

The same development is visible in the case law of other international bodies, such as the UN Committee against Torture (CAT). The CAT recently ruled in A.N. v. Switzerland<\/a> (September 2018) and again in A.H. v. Switzerland<\/a> (December 2018) that the transfer of an asylum seeker, victim of torture, to a country in which access to specialized treatment was not guaranteed would amount to inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of the UN Convention against Torture.<\/p>\n

Swiss National Case Law<\/strong><\/p>\n

Whereas Dublin transfers to Greece were officially suspended for some time, a general stop on such transfers to Bulgaria and Italy has not yet been announced by the Swiss State Secretariat for Migration (SEM). Such decisions have, also, not been systematically quashed by the Swiss Federal Administrative Court (TAF), despite the deficiencies in the reception conditions in these Member States being reported on constantly and in considerable detail by several NGOs and international Organizations, the Swiss Refugee Council (OSAR<\/abbr>) included. Even though in some individual cases the transfer of vulnerable asylum seekers to Italy or Bulgaria was suspended based on the situation in these countries, on the whole the SEM and the TAF still habitually rely on mutual trust. In the light of the recent international case law, part of which is also binding on Switzerland, the TAF and the SEM should carry out a more detailed assessment of the reception conditions in the responsible Dublin States to ensure that these conditions meet the needs of the individual asylum seeker caught in the Dublin procedure before implementing a transfer.<\/p>\n

Margarite Zoeteweij participated in the nccr \u2013 on the move project on <\/em>The Emergence of a European Law on Foreigners<\/a><\/em> at Fribourg University (Chair of Prof. Dr. Sarah Progin-Theuerkauf) as a PostDoc between 2016 and 2018. In February 2018 she joined <\/em>OSAR<\/a><\/em> as legal expert on EU asylum.<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/div><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Margarite Helena Zoeteweij publie sur le blog du NCCR un article d’analyse juridique portant sur la mise en \u0153uvre des transferts selon le r\u00e8glement Dublin III et sur la responsabilit\u00e9 des \u00c9tats ordonnant les renvois. Il y a quelques ann\u00e9es, la Cour europ\u00e9enne des droits de l\u2019homme (Courage<\/abbr>) avait suspendu les renvois vers la Gr\u00e8ce … Continued<\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[160,155,162],"tags":[1159,187,194,189],"ve_numero":[],"pays":[],"ve_type":[1090],"ve_action":[1050],"class_list":["post-53128","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-actualites","category-documentation","category-publications","tag-documentation","tag-dublin","tag-jurisprudence","tag-renvoi","ve_type-jurisprudence","ve_action-documentation"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/asile.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53128","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/asile.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/asile.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/asile.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/asile.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=53128"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/asile.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53128\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/asile.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53128"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/asile.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53128"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/asile.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53128"},{"taxonomy":"ve_numero","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/asile.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ve_numero?post=53128"},{"taxonomy":"pays","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/asile.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pays?post=53128"},{"taxonomy":"ve_type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/asile.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ve_type?post=53128"},{"taxonomy":"ve_action","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/asile.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ve_action?post=53128"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}