CYIL 2012

Harald Christian Scheu CYIL 3 ȍ2012Ȏ problems linked to the Dublin Convention, but on the other hand it would lead to some form of “asylum shopping” since applicants for asylum would be able to choose their EU country of destination. The Commission paper closed with stating that there were not many workable alternatives to the system of the Dublin Convention. 4 Also Member States showed their reluctance to change the Dublin criteria. In July 2001, the Commission, therefore, presented a draft which in most aspects confirmed the existing rules. 5 Regulation No 343/2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national 6 was adopted by the EC Council on 18 February 2003. This regulation (quoted as Dublin Regulation or Dublin II) replaced the Dublin Convention. The Dublin Regulation was adopted according to the procedure laid down in Article 67 of the TEC. During a transitional period of five years following the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Council had to act unanimously on a proposal from the Commission (or on the initiative of a Member State) and after consulting the European Parliament. The EP’s proposals for amendments of April 2002, however, were not taken into consideration by the Council. 7 Besides the Dublin Regulation, the Dublin system also includes Commission Regulation No 1560/2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of the Dublin Regulation, 8 Council Regulation No 2725/2000 concerning the establishment of “Eurodac” for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention, 9 and Council Regulation No 407/2002 laying down certain rules to implement the “Eurodac” Regulation. 10 As far as the genesis of the Dublin system is concerned, it has to be pointed out that Iceland and Norway acceded to the Dublin rules in 2001 and Switzerland in 2004. According to the preamble of the Dublin Regulation, the United Kingdom and Ireland declared to take part in the application of the Regulation. On the contrary, Denmark, in accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark, 11 was not bound by the Dublin Regulation. However, the Dublin Convention remained in force and continues to apply between Denmark and the Member States that were bound by the Regulation. In 2005 an agreement was 4 For detailed statistical information see the EC Working Staff Document “Evaluation of the Dublin Convention” of June 2001. SEC (2001) 756. 5 COM (2001) 447 final. 6 OJ L 50, 25 February 2003, p. 1. 7 Peers, S., Rogers, N. (ed.) EU Immigration and Asylum Law , 2006, 228. 8 OJ L 222, 5 September 2003, p. 3. 9 OJ L 316, 15 December 2000, p. 1-10. 10 OJ L 62, 5 March 2002, p. 1-5. 11 The Protocol excludes Denmark’s participation in matters relating to asylum and immigration.

90