Common European Asylum System in a Changing World

 family reunification possibilities,  the minor’s well-being and social development,  safety and security considerations in particular if a minor may be subject to human trafficking,  the views of the minor according to the age and maturity. Member States shall ensure that a qualified representative represents and/or assists an unaccompanied minor with respect to all procedures provided for in this Regulation. The representative shall have access to the applicant’s file.

• Discretionary clauses enabling a Member State to take over the responsibility of examination of the application (Article 17)

Discretionary clauses are actually derogations from the hierarchy of criteria. Two situations may occur under these clauses: 1. each Member State may decide to examine an application for international protection lodged with it by a third-country national or a stateless person, even if such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria; 2. the Member State in which an application for international protection is made and which is carrying out the process of determining the Member State responsible, or the Member State responsible, may request any other Member State to take charge of an applicant. The reasons of such request shall be: bringing together any family relations, humanitarian grounds based, in particular on family or cultural considerations.  Notion of “systemic flaws” Even though the Dublin system is based on the mutual trust among Member States, the case law of the ECHR and also CJEU broke this mutual trust rule (see Chapter on case law) in case of “systemic flaws”. The Dublin III Regulation reflected specifically these special situations by actually forbidding transfers to those Member States where there are systemic flaws in their asylum systems. Systemic flaws can exist both in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions in that Member State. These flaws must be so harsh in nature that they run the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. It means that in case it is impossible to transfer an applicant to the Member State primarily designated as responsible because there are substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws, the determining Member State shall continue to examine the other hierarchy criteria in order to establish if another Member State can be designated as responsible. If no other responsible state is found, the determining Member State shall become the Member State responsible. • Right to an effective remedy (appeal or review), including the right to apply for suspensive effect (Article 27) The applicant shall have the right to an effective remedy

43