Common European Asylum System in a Changing World

authorities, who did not deny him entry to Croatia, did not initiate any procedure for his return to Serbia, neither did they verify if he met the conditions for lawful entry. Furthermore, the Croatian authorities organised his transport to Slovenia, where he entered on 20 February 2016. Slovenia wished to hand him over to Austria, but the latter refused him entry. Hence, A.S. applied for international protection in Slovenia. C.K., C-578/16 PPU The case relates to the interpretation of Articles 3(2) and 17(1) Dublin III Regulation (DR III). The case concerns the transfer of a couple and their new-born child from Slovenia to Croatia. The CJEU ruled that even if there are no serious grounds for believing that there are systemic failures in the asylum procedure and the conditions for the reception of applicants for asylum, a transfer in itself can entail a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 EU Charter. If necessary, a Member State should suspend the transfer for as long as the applicant’s health condition does not render them capable of such a transfer. The requesting Member State may also choose to examine the request itself by making use of the “discretionary clause” under Article 17(1) DR III. That provision cannot, however, be interpreted to imply an obligation for that Member State to do so. If the state of health of the asylum seeker does not allow the requesting Member State to transfer within a six-month period, the Member State responsible shall be relieved of its obligations to take charge or to take back the person concerned and responsibility shall then be transferred to the requesting Member State in accordance with Article 29(2) DR III X., C-213/17 An asylum applicant lodged multiple asylum applications in two different Member States and he was the subject of a European Arrest Warrant at the same time. The CJEU ruled that where an applicant for international protection has been surrendered by one Member State to another under a European Arrest Warrant and is staying in the territory of that second Member State without having lodged a new application for international protection there, that second Member State may request the first Member State to take back that applicant and is not required to decide on the application lodged by that applicant. In the Court’s view, ruling otherwise could have the effect of deterring Member States from requesting the surrender of an asylum applicant for criminal prosecution in order to avoid having the responsibility for examining that person’s application at the end of the criminal proceedings transferred to them. Karim, C-155/15 Mr. Karim a Syrian national lodged his application for international protection in Sweden, the Swedish authorities recognized, that he had lodged another application in Slovenia before. Mr. Karim proved, that he had stayed for more than three months outside the EU in the meantime. The CJEU held that the applicant must be able to contest a transfer decision and invoke an infringement of the rule set out in subparagraph 19(2) DR III, i.e. where the applicant provides evidence that they have left the territory of one Member State, having made an application there, for at least three months and has made a new asylum application in another Member State. H. and R., Joined Cases C-582/17, C-583/17 As the application of the criteria is limited in principle to the “take charge” phase, it is essential that comprehensive legal protection be afforded at this stage. Article 27 DR III

94