Droit européen & international Droit pénal & procédure pénale
Auteur, co-auteur :
VAVOULA, Niovi ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance (FDEF) > Department of Law (DL) ; Migration and Security, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
Co-auteurs externes :
no
Langue du document :
Anglais
Titre :
Information Sharing in the Dublin System: Remedies for Asylum Seekers In-Between Gaps in Judicial Protection and Interstate Trust
See Alexander H. Türk & Herwig C.H. Hofmann, An Introduction to EU Administrative Governance, in EU ADMINISTRATIVE GOVERNANCE 1 (Alexander H. Türk & Herwig C.H. Hofmann eds., 2006).
See Micaela Lottini, From “Administrative Cooperation” in the Application of European Union Law to “Administrative Cooperation” in the Protection of European Rights and Liberties, 18 EUR. PUB. L. 127, 128 (2012).
See Herwig C.H. Hofmann, Composite Procedures in EU Administrative Law, in LEGAL CHALLENGES IN EU ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: TOWARDS AN INTEGRATED ADMINISTRATION 136–67 (Herwig C.H. Hofmann & Alexander H. Türk eds., 2009).
See Herwig C.H. Hofmann & Morgane Tidghi, Rights and Remedies in Implementation of EU Policies by Multi-Jurisdictional Networks, 20 EUR. PUB. L. 147, 148 (2014).
See Jens-Peter Schneider, Basic Structures of Information Management in the European Administrative Union, 20 EUR. PUB. L. 89, 91 (2014).
Directive 2011/95, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on Standards for the Qualification of Third-Country Nationals or Stateless Persons as Beneficiaries of International Protection, for a Uniform Status for Refugees or for Persons Eligible for Subsidiary Protection, and for the Content of the Protection Granted, 2011 O.J. (L 337) 9 (EU).
Directive 2013/32, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on Common Procedures for Granting and Withdrawing International Protection, 2013 O.J. (L 180) 60 (EU).
Directive 2013/33, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 Laying Down Standards for the Reception of Applicants for International Protection, 2013 O.J. (L 180) 96 (EU).
Regulation 604/2013, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 Establishing the Criteria and Mechanisms for Determining the Member State Responsible for Examining an Application for International Protection Lodged in One of the Member States by a Third-Country National or a Stateless Person (Recast), 2013 O.J. (L 180) 31 (EU) [hereinafter Dublin III Regulation].
See Regulation 603/2013, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the Establishment of “Eurodac” for the Comparison of Fingerprints for the Effective Application of Regulation 604/2013 Establishing the Criteria and Mechanisms for Determining the Member State Responsible for Examining an Application for International Protection Lodged in One of the Member States by a Third-Country National or a Stateless Person and on Requests for the Comparison with Eurodac Data by Member States’ Law Enforcement Authorities and Europol for Law Enforcement Purposes, and Amending Regulation 1077/2011 Establishing a European Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, 2013 O.J. (L 180) 1 (EU) [hereinafter Recast Eurodac Regulation].
See Hofmann & Tidghi, supra note 4, at 152.
See, e.g., MARCELLE RENEMAN, EU ASYLUM PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHT TO AN EFFECTIVE REMEDY (2014); Evangelia (Lilian) Tsourdi, Of Legislative Waves and Case Law: Effective Judicial Protection, Right to an Effective Remedy and Proceduralisation in the EU Asylum Policy, 12 REV. EUR. ADMIN. L. 143 (2019).
Already in 1999, in its Tampere Conclusions the European Council stated that “[i]n the longer term, Community rules should lead to a common asylum procedure and a uniform status for those who are granted asylum throughout the Union.” See Presidency Conclusions, Tampere European Council (Oct. 15–16, 1999), para. 15, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/tam_en.htm#c.
Convention Determining the State Responsible for Examining Applications for Asylum Lodged in One of the Member States of the European Communities, June 15, 1990, 1997 O.J. (C 254) 1 [hereinafter Dublin Convention].
See GÖRAN MELANDER, REFUGEES IN ORBIT (1978).
For elaboration of this point, see ECJ, Joined Cases 411 & 493/10, N.S. v. Sec’y of State for the Home Dep’t, ECLI:EU: C:2011:865 (Dec. 21, 2011), para. 79, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=117187&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5742659.
See Dublin III Regulation, supra note 9; Commission Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Asylum and Migration Management and Amending Council Directive 2003/109 and the Proposed Regulation XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Fund], COM (2020) 610 final (Sept. 23, 2020) [hereinafter Proposed Regulation on Asylum and Migration Management].
See Dublin III Regulation, supra note 9, at art. 3(1).
See Dublin III Regulation, supra note 9, at art. 7.
See Dublin III Regulation, supra note 9, at arts. 9–11.
See Dublin III Regulation, supra note 9, at art. 12.
See Dublin III Regulation, supra note 9, at art. 13.
Elspeth Guild, The Europeanisation of Europe’s Asylum Policy, 18 INT’L J. REFUGEE L. 630, 637 (2006).
See Dublin III Regulation, supra note 9, at art. 17.
See Dublin III Regulation, supra note 9, at arts. 23–24.
See Dublin III Regulation, supra note 9, at arts. 21–22.
See, e.g., Francesco Maiani, The Dublin III Regulation: A New Legal Framework for a More Humane System?, in REFORMING THE COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM: THE NEW EUROPEAN REFUGEE LAW 104–14 (Vincent Chetail et al. eds., 2016).
See Elspeth Guild, Seeking Asylum: Storm Clouds Between International Commitments and EU Legislative Measures, 29 EUR. L. REV. 198 (2004).
See Valsamis Mitsilegas, Solidarity and Trust in the Common European Asylum System, 2 COMP. MIGRATION. STUD. 181, 184 (2014).
See Regulation 767/2008, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 Concerning the Visa Information System (VIS) and the Exchange of Data Between Member States on Short-Stay Visas, 2008 O.J. (L 218) 60 (EC).; see also infra Section D.
All EU Member States are connected to the system, including Ireland and—for the moment—the United Kingdom. Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein are Dublin Associate States and, therefore, are connected to Eurodac as well.
For a holistic analysis of Eurodac, see NIOVI VAVOULA, IMMIGRATION AND PRIVACY IN THE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: THE CASE OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS ch. 4 (forthcoming 2021).
See Regulation 2018/1861, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 November 2018 on the Establishment, Operation and Use of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the Field of Border Checks, and Amending the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement, and Amending and Repealing Regulation 1987/2006, 2018 O.J. (L 312) 14 (EU).
See Regulation 767/2008, supra note 30.
See Regulation 2018/1726, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018, on the European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA), and Amending Regulation 1987/2006 and Council Decision 2007/533/JHA and Repealing Regulation 1077/2011, 2018 O.J. (L 295) 99 (EU) [hereinafter eu-LISA Regulation]. In the future, three more centralized information systems will be operational: The Entry/Exit System, the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS), and the European Criminal Record Information Systems (ECRIS).
For an account of the Eurodac story, see Jonathan Aus, Eurodac: A Solution Looking for a Problem?, 10 EUR. INTEGRATION ONLINE PAPERS 1 (2006).
See Council Regulation 2725/2000 of Dec. 11, 2000, Concerning the Establishment of “Eurodac” for the Comparison of Fingerprints for the Effective Application of the Dublin Convention, 2000 O.J. (L 316) 1 (EC).
See Council Regulation 407/2002 of Feb. 28, 2002, Laying Down Certain Rules to Implement Regulation 2725/2000 Concerning the Establishment of “Eurodac” for the Comparison of Fingerprints for the Effective Application of the Dublin Convention, 2002 O.J. (L 62) 1 (EC).
See Recast Eurodac Regulation, supra note 10. For an analysis, see Niovi Vavoula, The Recast Eurodac Regulation: Are Asylum Seekers Treated as Suspected Criminals?, in SEEKING ASYLUM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION: SELECTED PROTECTION ISSUES RAISED BY THE SECOND PHASE OF THE COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM 247–73 (Céline Bauloz et al. eds., 2015).
See Commission Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Establishment of “Eurodac” for the Comparison of Fingerprints for the Effective Application of Regulation 604/2013, Establishing the Criteria and Mechanisms for Determining the Member State Responsible for Examining an Application for International Protection Lodged in One of the Member States by a Third-Country National or a Stateless Person for Identifying an Illegally Staying Third-Country National or Stateless Person and on Requests for the Comparison with Eurodac Data by Member States’ Law Enforcement Authorities and Europol for Law Enforcement Purposes (Recast), COM (2016) 272 final (May 23, 2016) [hereinafter Recast Eurodac Proposal]. An inter-institutional agreement between the co-legislators was reached in 2019.
See Commission Amended Proposal of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Establishment of “Eurodac” for the Comparison of Biometric Data for the Effective Application of Regulation XXX/XXX [Regulation on Asylum and Migration Management] and of Regulation XXX/XXX [Resettlement Regulation], for Identifying an Illegally Staying Third-Country National or Stateless Person and on Requests for the Comparison with Eurodac Data by Member States’ Law Enforcement Authorities and Europol for Law Enforcement Purposes and Amending Regulations 2018/1240 and 2019/818, COM (2020) 614 final (Sept. 23, 2020).
Commission Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM (2020) 609 final (Sept. 23, 2020).
For an analysis, see Niovi Vavoula, The Transformation of Eurodac Under the New Pact on Migration and Asylum: From the Sidekick of the Dublin System to a Database in Support of EU Policies on Asylum, Resettlement and Irregular Migration (Eur. Council on Refugees & Exiles, Working Paper, 2021).
See Recast Eurodac Regulation, supra note 10, at art. 1.
See Recast Eurodac Regulation, supra note 10, at art. 9(1).
See Recast Eurodac Regulation, supra note 10, at art. 9(3).
See Recast Eurodac Regulation, supra note 10, at art. 9(5).
See Recast Eurodac Regulation, supra note 10, at arts. 14–16.
See Recast Eurodac Regulation, supra note 10, at art. 17.
The 2020 Commission Proposal foresees the storage of such data. See Recast Eurodac Proposal, supra note 40, at art. 2.
See supra Section B.
See Recast Eurodac Regulation, supra note 10, at arts. 11, 14(2).
See infra Section D.
EUR. UNION FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AGENCY, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS OF THE OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE FINGERPRINTS FOR EURODAC 3 (2015), https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2015-fingerprinting-focuspaper_en.pdf.
See supra note 31.
See EU-LISA, EURODAC – 2019 STATISTICS, at 5 (2020), https://www.eulisa.europa.eu/Publications/Reports/Eurodac2019Statistics.pdf.
See Schneider, supra note 5, at 89–90.
See SERGIO ALONSO DE LEON, COMPOSITE PROCEDURES IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 209–10 (2017); see also Hofmann, supra note 3, at 138–39.
See Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union art. 1, Oct. 26, 2012, 2012 O.J. (C 326) 391.
See Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union art. 7.
See Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union art. 8.
See, e.g., ELS KINDT, PRIVACY AND DATA PROTECTION ISSUES OF BIOMETRICS APPLICATIONS (2013).
ECJ, Case C-291/12, Schwarz v. Stadt Bochum, ECLI:EU:C:2013:670 (Oct. 17, 2013), para. 43, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-291/12.
Commission Implementing Regulation 118/2014, of 30 January 2014 Amending Regulation 1560/2003, Laying Down Detailed Rules for the Application of Council Regulation 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, 2014 O.J. (L 39) 1 (EU).
European Commission, Evaluation of the Implementation of the Dublin III Regulation - Final Report, at 25 (March 18, 2016), https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/policies/asylum/examination-of-applicants/docs/evaluation_of_the_implementation_of_the_dublin_iii_regulation_en.pdf.
Id. at 25–26.
For an account of such deficiencies in Greece, see More Than a Third of Migrants Not Fingerprinted, Officials Say, EKATHIMERINI (Aug. 20, 2015, 10:42 AM), http://www.ekathimerini.com/200728/article/ekathimerini/news/more-than-athird-of-migrants-not-fingerprinted-officials-say.
European Court of Auditors, EU Information Systems Supporting Border Control - A Strong Tool, But More Focus Needed on Timely and Complete Data, at 34–35 (2019), https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR19_20/SR_Border_control_EN.pdf.
Regulation 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the Protection of Natural Persons with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, and Repealing Directive 95/46/EC, art. 9, 2016 O.J. (L 119) 1 (EU) [hereinafter GDPR].
Eurodac: The European Union’s First Multinational Biometric System, THALES (May 23, 2020), https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/markets/digital-identity-and-security/government/customer-cases/eurodac.
See eu-LISA Regulation, supra note 35, at 9, 16.
See European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Under Watchful Eyes: Biometrics, EU IT Systems and Fundamental Rights, at 81–94 (2018), https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2018-biometrics-fundamental-rights-eu_en.pdf.
See European Commission, supra note 65, at 36.
See European Commission, supra note 65, at 31.
As mentioned above, refugee status is national. For recognition rates, see Asylum Recognition Rates in the EU/EFTA by Country, 2008–2017, MIGRATION POLICY INST., https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/asylumrecognition-rates-euefta-country-2008-2017 (last visited Feb. 27, 2021).
See Directive 95/46 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, art. 28, 1995 O.J. (L 281) 31 (EC).
See GDPR, supra note 69, at art. 77(2).
See Nikolaus Marsch, Networks of Supervisory Bodies for Information Management in the European Administrative Union, 20 EUR. PUB. L. 127 (2014).
See Eurodac Supervision Coordination Group, Activity Report 2016–2017, at 3 (2018), https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/19-01-07_eurodac_supervision_coordination_group_activity_report_2016-2017_en.pdf.
Marsch understands this approach as vertical centralization. See Marsch, supra note 78, at 143. See also FRANZISKA BOEHM, INFORMATION SHARING AND DATA PROTECTION IN THE AREA OF FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE – TOWARDS HARMONISED DATA PROTECTION PRINCIPLES FOR INFORMATION EXCHANGE AT EU-LEVEL 395 (2013).
See Recast Eurodac Regulation, supra note 10, at art. 30.
See Recast Eurodac Regulation, supra note 10, at art. 31.
See Recast Eurodac Regulation, supra note 10, at art. 31(2).
See eu-LISA Regulation, supra note 35, at art. 18(2)(a).
See Marsch, supra note 78, at 142–43.
See Recast Eurodac Regulation, supra note 10, at arts. 29(1), 29(2), 29(3).
Reference is made to Article 12 of Directive 95/46, supra note 76, which has been replaced by the GDPR.
ECJ, Case C-604/12, H.N. v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2014:302 (May 8, 2014), para. 50, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-604/12.
The rights are also foreseen in the GDPR. See GDPR, supra note 69, at arts. 15–17.
Rotaru v. Romania, 2000 V Eur. Ct. H.R. 192, para. 72, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58586.
See Recast Eurodac Regulation, supra note 10, at art. 37(1).
The cases are analyzed below because—though they involve Eurodac—technically, they relate to information exchange following the procedure prescribed in Article 34 of the Dublin III Regulation. See infra Section D.
The case involved the deletion of data. The extremely low number is in striking contrast with the finding that deletion is not done routinely, because the Member State that inserted the data is not aware of the change of status. See Eurodac Supervision Coordination Group, Coordinated Inspection Report on Advance Deletion of Data (Dec. 2011), https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/11-12-09_eurodac_report_en.pdf.
See Activity Report 2016–2017, supra note 78, at 15, 22.
See Eurodac Supervision Coordination Group, Activity Report 2014–2015, at 9 (2016), https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/17-03-14_eurodac_supervision_coordination_group_activity_report_2014-2015_en.pdf.
There are activity reports, but they do not detail the lodging of complaints.
See Eurodac Supervision Coordination Group, Report on the Exercise of Data Subjects’ Rights in Relation to Eurodac, at 9 (Nov. 2019), https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/2019_11_eurodac_report_data_subjects_rights_en.pdf.
See European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, supra note 72, at 100–01.
See European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, supra note 72, at 101.
See Recast Eurodac Regulation, supra note 10, at art. 29(1)(e).
Nevertheless, a minority of Member States assume that the applicants have understood. See Report on the Exercise of Data Subjects’ Rights in Relation to Eurodac, supra note 97, at 5.
Id. at 6–7. It is noteworthy that the 2016 proposal for a recast Eurodac Regulation has strengthened the right of information. Article 30, as negotiated, prescribes that more extensive information will be provided in a concise, transparent, intelligible, and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language. See Recast Eurodac Regulation, supra note 10, at art. 30. Additional safeguards are included in relation to minors.
See European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, supra note 72, at 101. at 102.
See GDPR, supra note 69, at art. 79.
See GDPR, supra note 69, at art. 78.
Alexander H. Türk, Judicial Review of Integrated Administration in the EU, in LEGAL CHALLENGES IN EU ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, supra note 3, at 218–56.
See Lottini, supra note 2, at 135.
See YI (Previous Claims, Fingerprint Match, Eurodac) [2007] UKAIT 54, https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/37873.
See YI (Previous Claims, Fingerprint Match, Eurodac) [2007] UKAIT 54, https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/37873. at para. 15.
See YI (Previous Claims, Fingerprint Match, Eurodac) [2007] UKAIT 54, https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/37873. at para. 16.
See RZ (Eurodac, Fingerprint Match, Admissible) [2008] UKAIT 7, https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/37822.
This is because the UK Home Office, in essence, asserts that the applicants committed fraud. See R v. Sec’y of State for the Home Dep’t ex parte Khawaja [1982] UKHL 5, [1984] 1 AC 74 (appeal taken from Eng.). See also RZ, supra note 113, at para. 12.
Tribunal Administratif de Nantes [TA Nantes] [Nantes Administrative Court], Feb. 18, 2016, 1600829, https://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/sites/default/files/aldfiles/TA%20Nantes%20-%2018022016%20-%20defaut%20examen%20%28Dublin%20Espagne%29%20-%20copie%202_0.pdf (Fr.).
See Dublin III Regulation, supra note 9, at art. 13(1).
ABRvS 1 september 2016, ECLI:NL:RVS:2016:2441, Raad van State, 201604335/1/V3, available at https://www.raadvanstate.nl/@105053/201604335-1-v3/ (Neth.).
Beneficiaries of international protection have their record marked in Eurodac. See Recast Eurodac Regulation, supra note 10, at art. 18.
See ABRvS 12 augustus 2014, ECLI:NL:RVS:2014:3127, Raad van State, 201304293/1/V4, available at https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RVS:2014:3127 (Neth.). This case concerned the return of an irregular migrant who held a residence permit in another Member State and the extent to which the State Secretary ought to further investigate the validity of that permit.
Rb. Den Haag 10 december 2019, Rb Den Haag, NL19.24439, JV 2020/59, ve19003512, available at https://jure.nl/ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2019:13122 (Neth.).
The Court referred to case law of the ECtHR on Article 6 ECHR. It acknowledged that in Maaouia v. France, the ECtHR determined that Article 6 of the ECHR does not apply to procedures regarding the entry, stay, and deportation of foreign nationals. Nevertheless, the Court refered to the decisions of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State, which emphasized the importance of the right to equal opportunities and the right to a contradictory procedure within the legal order, also separate from Article 6 of the ECHR. See ABRvS 19 april 2012, ECLI:NL:RVS:2012:BW4915, AR 2012, 282 m.nt. AMM, available at https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RVS:2012:BW4915 (Neth.); ABRvS 30 juni 2017, ECLI:NL:RVS:2017:1674, AB 2017, 365 m.nt. LMK en AMLJ, available at https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RVS:2017:1674 (Neth.).
See KINDT, supra note 62.
See Dublin III Regulation, supra note 9, at art. 22(3)(a)(i).
EVELIEN BROUWER, CASE NOTE: ANNOTATIE RB DEN HAAG 10 DECEMBER 2019, NL19.24439: EURODAC EN HET RECHT OP CONTRA-EXPERTISE (Jurisprudentie vreemdelingenrecht 2020).
See ECJ, Case C-63/15, Mehrdad Ghezelbash v. Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, ECLI:EU:C:2016:409 (June 7, 2016), http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-63/15. For further analysis, see Subsection D(II).
See Mariolina Eliantonio, Information Exchange in European Administrative Law – A Threat to Effective Judicial Protection, 23 MAASTRICT J. EUR. COMP. L. 531, 536–37 (2016).
See EVELIEN BROUWER, DIGITAL BORDERS AND REAL RIGHTS – EFFECTIVE REMEDIES FOR THIRD-COUNTRY NATIONALS IN THE SCHENGEN INFORMATION SYSTEMS (2008).
See MORGANE TIDGHI, NETWORKS OF INFORMATION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION: MULTI-LEVEL ADMINISTRATIVE COOPERATION IN COMPOSITE DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES 124 (2013).
See Eliantonio, supra note 126, at 542.
Regulation 2018/1861, supra note 33.
CE Ass., June 9, 1999, 190384 (Fr.).
See GDPR, supra note 69, at art. 5(1)(c).
See Hofmann & Tidghi, supra note 4, at 150.
CE Ass., May 10, 2017, Rec. Lebon 510, Ééhttps://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/sites/default/files/aldfiles/France%20-%20Le%20Conseil%20d%27État%20_%20Décision%20406122.pdf (Fr.).
Tribunal Administratif de Nantes [TA Nantes] [Nantes Administrative Court], June 22, 2015, 1505089, https://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/sites/default/files/aldfiles/France%20-%20Tribunal%20Adminnistratif%201505089.pdf (Fr.).
See Commission Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing the Criteria and Mechanisms for Determining the Member State Responsible for Examining an Application for International Protection Lodged in One of the Member States by a Third-Country National or a Stateless Person, at 13, COM (2008) 820 final (Dec. 3, 2008).
See GDPR, supra note 69, at art. 5(1)(b). The principle requires that data be collected for specified, explicit, and legitimate purposes, and not be further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes.
Some Member States have reported that health data may be brought to the attention of other authorities, such as social welfare and reception officers, legal representatives, police, and immigration services dealing with a particular case. See European Commission, supra note 65, at 64.
Requests for exchange of information may also take place in some Member States—Norway, Greece, and Denmark—for family tracing purposes. See UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMM’R FOR REFUGEES, LEFT IN LIMBO: UNHCR STUDY ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 104 (2017), https://www.refworld.org/docid/59d5dcb64.html.
See Dublin III Regulation, supra note 9, at art. 34(1).
144See id. at art. 34(2).
Communication is subject to prior approval of the applicant; in other words, their consent must be sought as the basis for the lawful transfer of data. See id. at art. 34(3).
See U.K. Home Office, Dublin III Regulation, at 33–34 (Aug. 14, 2020), https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/882400/Dublin-III-regulation-v3.0ext.pdf.
See Dublin III Regulation, supra note 9, at art. 34(6).
See Dublin III Regulation, supra note 9, at art. 34(7).
See Dublin III Regulation, supra note 9, at art. 34(8).
See Dublin III Regulation, supra note 9, at art. 34(9).
See Dublin III Regulation, supra note 9, at art. 34(11).
See ABRvS 11 april 2019, ECLI:NL:RVS:2019:1165, AR 2019, 106, available at https://opmaat.sdu.nl/book/SDU_RECHTSPRAAKNL_ECLI_NL_RVS_2019_1165/ECLI_NL_RVS_2019_1165.
See ABRvS 11 april 2019, ECLI:NL:RVS:2019:1165, AR 2019, 106, available at para. 6.
See ABRvS 11 april 2019, ECLI:NL:RVS:2019:1165, AR 2019, 106, available at para. 6.1.
See Evelien Brouwer, Interoperability and Interstate Trust: A Perilous Combination for Fundamental Rights, EU IMMIGR. & ASYLUM L. & POL’Y (June 11, 2019), https://eumigrationlawblog.eu/interoperability-and-interstate-trust-a-perilous-combinationfor-fundamental-rights/.
See BROUWER, CASE NOTE, supra note 124.
BS and RS v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Ors [2016] IEHC 469, para. 22 (Ir.). The judgment cannot be retrieved but the main arguments are quoted in the judgment by the Court of Appeal, which is discussed below.
This data is national. The UK is not a Schengen Member State and therefore the issuance of short-stay visas is subject to national rules.
See Dublin III Regulation, supra note 9, at art. 12(2).
See BS and RS, [2016] IEHC 469.
See Ghezelbash, Case C-63/15.
See ECJ, Case C-155/15, George Karim v. Migrationsverket, ECLI:EU:C:2016:410 (June 7, 2016), http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-155/15.
See the case cited supra note 158, paras. 20–23; see also Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, Case C-63/15, Mehrdad Ghezelbash v. Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (Mar. 17, 2016); Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, Case C-155/15, George Karim v. Migrationsverket (Mar. 17, 2016).
See Ghezelbash, Case C-63/15 at paras. 30–61; the case cited supra note 158, paras. 20–23.
See BS and RS, [2016] IEHC 469 at para. 21.
See Ghezelbash, Case C-63/15 at para. 51.
See BS and RS, [2016] IEHC 469 at para. 22.
See BS and RS, [2016] IEHC 469 at para. 25.
See BS and RS v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Ors [2017] IECA 179, para. 30, https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5da048364653d07b2518fd6c (Ir.).
Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, Case C-63/15, supra note 165, at para. 62.
See BS and RS, [2017] IECA 179 at para. 47.
See BS and RS, [2017] IECA 179 at para. 48.
See BS and RS v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Ors [2017] IECA 179, para. 25 (Hogan, J., dissenting), https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5da048364653d07b2518fd6c (Ir.).
See BS and RS v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Ors [2017] IECA 179, para. 25 (Hogan, J., dissenting), https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5da048364653d07b2518fd6c (Ir.). at paras. 26–28.
See BS and RS v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Ors [2019] IESC 032, https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5da02cc04653d058440f99e6 (Ir.).
See BS and RS v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Ors [2019] IESC 032, https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5da02cc04653d058440f99e6 (Ir.). at para. 34.
For such examples, see European Commission, supra note 65, at 81.
As in Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, and Slovenia. See id. at 82.
As in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Lithuania, Romania, Switzerland, and Norway. See id.
See Proposed Regulation on Asylum and Migration Management, supra note 17, at art. 40.
See Diana-Urania Galetta, Public Administration in the Era of Database and Information Exchange Networks: Empowering Administrative Power or Just Better Serving the Citizens?, 25 EUR. PUB. L. 171, 179 (2019).
Regulation 2019/817 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 on Establishing a Framework for Interoperability Between EU Information Systems in the Field of Borders and Visa and Amending Regulations 767/2008, 2016/399, 2017/2226, 2018/1240, 2018/1726 and 2018/1861 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Decisions 2004/512/EC and 2008/633/JHA, 2019 O.J. (L 135) 27 (EU).
See Niovi Vavoula, Interoperability of EU Information Systems: The Deathblow to the Rights to Privacy and Personal Data Protection of Third-Country Nationals?, 26 EUR. PUB. L. 131, 153–54 (2020).
Regulation 2016/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2016 on the European Border and Coast Guard, and Amending Regulation 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Repealing Regulation 863/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Regulation 2007/2004 and Council Decision 2005/267/EC, art. 72, 2016 O.J. (L 251) 1 (EU).
