Dublin

Author

JRS Romania

General

Source: IGI – DAI, 02 March 2026.

In the outgoing procedure, in 2024 Romania sent 248 requests, of which 190 were accepted and 7 transfers were implemented, marking a 3.7% outgoing transfer rate; the country received 3,122 requests in the incoming procedure, of which 2,004 were accepted, and 161 were then transferred, marking a 8% incoming transfer rate. In 2025, Romania sent a total of 70 outgoing Dublin requests (11 take charge requests and 2 re-examination requests, as well as 56 take back requests and 1 re-examination request). Of these, 59 requests were accepted (7 take charge and 52 take back), and 6 transfers were implemented, all under the take back procedure. In the incoming procedure, Romania received 1,948 Dublin requests (1,315 take charge and 633 take back requests). Of these, 1,360 were accepted (1,136 take charge and 224 take back), and 41 transfers were implemented.[1]

Outgoing procedure

According to IGI-DAI, in 2025, there were 57 “take back” requests sent – 56 initial take back requests and 1 re-examination request.[2] Countries of origin: Austria (1), Bulgaria (44), Germany (6), Spain (1), Greece (2), Italy (1), Sweden (2). In 2025, there were 52 “take back” requests accepted – Austria (1), Bulgaria (42), Germany (5), Spain (1), Italy (1), Sweden (2). [3]

According to IGI-DAI, in 2025, there were 13 “take charge” requests sent – 11 initial takeover requests and 2 re-examination requests.[4] The country of origins Germany (6), France (2), the Netherlands (1), Poland (2), Slovakia (2). The number of Dublin “take charge” requests accepted are 7 – Germany (2), Slovakia (2), Poland (2), the Netherlands (1).[5]

Source: IGI-DAI, information provided upon request, 02 March 2026.

Source: IGI – DAI, 02 March 2026.

Incoming procedure

The total number of Dublin in 2025 “take charge” applications received was 1315. Distribution of total number of Dublin “take charge” applications received, by sending country (including country name and number of applications) was the following: Austria (21), Belgium (23), Bulgaria (6), Switzerland (29), Czech Republic (8), Germany (144), Denmark (5), Finland (4), France (44), Greece (103), Croatia (11), Ireland (2), Iceland (3), Italy (821), Lithuania (4), Luxembourg (6), Malta (2), Netherlands (32), Norway (24), Poland (12), Sweden (5), Slovenia (3).[7]

The total number of Dublin “take back received in 2025 was 633. The division by country sending the request was the following: Austria (38), Belgium (8), Bulgaria (1), Switzerland (11), Czech Republic (17), Germany (163), Denmark (4), Spain (2), France (195), Greece (15), Croatia (8), Hungary (1), Ireland (26), Italy (85), Luxembourg (3), Netherlands (21), Norway (2), Poland (4), Portugal (2), Sweden (1), Slovenia (5), Slovakia (1). [8]

The total number of take charge requests accepted was the following: 1136. Austria (14), Belgium (19), Switzerland (24), Czech Republic (7), Germany (119), Denmark (4), Finland (2), France (32), Greece (53), Croatia (5), Italy (802), Lithuania (2), Luxembourg (4), Malta (1), Netherlands (30), Norway (12), Poland (3), Sweden (5), Slovenia (1).

Take back requests accepted were 224. Austria (26), Belgium (8), Switzerland (8), Czech Republic (8), Germany (89), Denmark (3), France (41), Greece (3), Croatia (1), Hungary (1), Ireland (2), Italy (16), Netherlands (10), Poland (1), Sweden (1), Slovakia (1).

Source: IGI-DAI, 02 March 2026.

The total number of Dublin “take charge” requests received in 2025 was 1,315. The distribution per issuing country was as follows: Austria (21), Belgium (23), Bulgaria (6), Switzerland (29), Czech Republic (8), Germany (144), Denmark (5), Finland (4), France (44), Greece (103), Croatia (11), Ireland (2), Iceland (3), Italy (821), Lithuania (4), Luxembourg (6), Malta (2), Netherlands (32), Norway (24), Poland (12), Sweden (5), Slovenia (3).[9]

The total number of Dublin “take back” requests received in 2025 was 633. The distribution per issuing country was as follows: Austria (38), Belgium (8), Bulgaria (1), Switzerland (11), Czech Republic (17), Germany (163), Denmark (4), Spain (2), France (195), Greece (15), Croatia (8), Hungary (1), Ireland (26), Italy (85), Luxembourg (3), Netherlands (21), Norway (2), Poland (4), Portugal (2), Sweden (1), Slovenia (5), Slovakia (1). [10]

The total number of “take charge” requests accepted in 2025 was 1,136, distributed as follows: Austria (14), Belgium (19), Switzerland (24), Czech Republic (7), Germany (119), Denmark (4), Finland (2), France (32), Greece (53), Croatia (5), Italy (802), Lithuania (2), Luxembourg (4), Malta (1), Netherlands (30), Norway (12), Poland (3), Sweden (5), Slovenia (1). [11]

The total number of “take back” requests accepted in 2025 was 224, distributed as follows: Austria (26), Belgium (8), Switzerland (8), Czech Republic (8), Germany (89), Denmark (3), France (41), Greece (3), Croatia (1), Hungary (1), Ireland (2), Italy (16), Netherlands (10), Poland (1), Sweden (1), Slovakia (1). [12]

Application of the Dublin criteria

To prove family links, the asylum applicant is not required to present original documents or to undertake DNA tests. In general, they present copies of the family book, birth certificate, residence permit of the relative with whom they would like to be reunited and, in the case of unaccompanied children, the relative’s desire to be reunited with the unaccompanied child, expressed in writing. According to legal counsellors, family unity is the most frequent criterion applied in practice, with the majority of cases concerning reunion with family outside Romania.

According to CNRR, before the interview, all asylum applicants are asked whether they have relatives in another Member State. If they confirm this, IGI-DAI staff provides information on the Dublin procedure; CNRR also provides legal counselling on the process. The primary evidence required by the authorities includes original documents proving family ties, such as birth certificates, marriage certificates, and residence permits. Based on cases observed in 2024, there were no reported instances where authorities conducting the Dublin procedure refused to apply the family provisions.^[13] CNRR has not encountered cases of refusal of the authorities to apply the family provisions if the asylum applicant has not indicated the existence of family members in another Member State from the outset of the application in the assistance provided in 2025. [14]

In 2025, CNRR observed the following practices: before the interview, asylum applicants are questioned about the existence of family members in another Member State. The Dublin procedure and the criteria underlying the initiation of the procedure are explained to them (also CNRR provides legal counselling regarding the Dublin procedure). If applicants declare that they have family members in another Member State, it is necessary to prove this fact and the kinship relationship through relevant and original documents. There were cases in which this procedure could not be applied, as applicants did not have the relevant documents to prove the family link.[15]

The dependent persons and discretionary clauses

The sovereignty clause was not applied in 2022.^[16] No information on the application of the clause was provided by IGI-DAI since 2023.

Procedure

According to IGI-DAI, in 2023, the outgoing and incoming requests were processed within the terms stipulated in the Dublin III Regulation.^[17] According to IGI in 2024, the average duration of the Dublin procedure from the issuance of an outgoing request to the actual transfer to the responsible Member State was 6 months. Similarly, the average duration from the acceptance of responsibility by another Member State to the actual transfer was also 6 months. The average duration of the Dublin procedure in 2025, from the moment of issuing an exit application to the actual transfer to the Member State responsible, was of 3-4 months. The average duration of the Dublin procedure, from the moment of acceptance of responsibility by another Member State to the actual transfer to the Member State responsible, was of 1-2 months.[18]

Article 119 of the Asylum Act states that, if after lodging an application for international protection and before taking a decision in the national asylum procedure, IGI-DAI discovers proof or circumstantial evidence which indicates the responsibility of another Member State to examine the application under the Dublin Regulation, it shall initiate the Dublin procedure.

All asylum applicants are fingerprinted, photographed and checked against the Eurodac database. In practice, there were cases where asylum applicants refused to be fingerprinted but, after they were explained that this was necessary for the asylum procedure and, in case of refusal, they would have been detained, they agreed to it. In case the applicant does not comply with the obligation to be photographed and fingerprinted,^[19] according to IGI-DAI, a coercive restraint may be applied (details about this measure were not provided).^[20]

The use of these measures must be non-punitive, proportionate and applied only for the necessary period, if there is no other way of determining the asylum applicant to cooperate with the staff of IGI-DAI.^[21]

According to CNRR, all asylum applicants are fingerprinted, except for minors under the age of 14. Of the applicants counselled, none stated that they refused to be fingerprinted. ^[22] In the event of non-compliance by applicants for a form of international protection with the obligation to submit to being photographed and fingerprinted, according to art. 19 letter a) of Law 122/2006, means of coercion may be applied to the person involved. The use of means of coercion must be proportionate, applied only for the necessary period and only when there is no other way of determining the asylum applicant to cooperate with the staff of the General Inspectorate for Immigration and must never have the character of a sanction.[23]

 Individualised guarantees

The decisions issued by IGI-DAI in Galaţi and Giurgiu do not mention any information regarding the fact that individual guarantees were requested by the Romanian Dublin Unit or any information regarding the state of play of the applicant’s asylum procedure in the respective Member State. According to the director of Regional Centre Timișoara and Galati the Dublin Unit does not seek individualised guarantees but requests information regarding the stage of the procedure prior to a transfer. For 2023, IGI-DAI indicated that the Dublin Unit does not seek to request individualised guarantees; further details were not provided.^[24] There was no information given or available for 2024 and 2025.

According to CNRR, in cases of family unity criteria the authority conducting the Dublin procedure requests relevant and original documents of the relatives from another Member State:  resident permit and other similar documents. Through these documents the authority conducting the Dublin procedure seek individualised guarantees that the asylum applicant will have adequate reception conditions upon transfer. From the practice encountered by the CNRR through the assistance provided to asylum applicants, individualised guarantees are sought before determining the responsible Member State.[25]

 Transfers

According to Article 127 of the Asylum Act, an asylum applicant who is subject to the Dublin procedure has the same rights and obligations as an asylum applicant in the regular procedure until the date when the transfer is effectively carried out. This means that they have the right to stay in the regional centres until the date they are actually transferred to the responsible Member State.

Nevertheless, IGI-DAI may reduce or withdraw the material reception conditions of asylum applicants, including asylum applicants subject to the Dublin procedure. The motivated decision may be challenged in court.^[26]

The restrictive measures prescribed by law, which may be imposed to the asylum applicant subject to Dublin procedure are:

• The obligation to report at IGI;^[27]
• Designation of their residence in a Regional Centre of Procedures for Asylum applicants;^[28]
• Placement or, as the case may be, remaining in public custody (detention).^[29]

The only restrictive measure not applicable to asylum applicants subject to Dublin procedure is the placement in specially designated closed places, which are defined as alternatives to detention but in practice consist of detention rooms in the Regional Centres.^[30] Reporting duties and residence in a specific place may be imposed in order to ensure the transfer.^[31] Detention for the purpose of a transfer is discussed in Grounds for Detention.

If after the asylum applicant is placed in detention, one of the deadlines provided by Article 28(3) of the Dublin Regulation expires, the measure ceases to have effect. IGI draws up a notice on the cessation of the measure, which is communicated to the applicant.^[32]In general, asylum applicants subject to the Dublin procedure are not placed in detention, this was also confirmed by the IGI-DAI director from Timișoara.

According to IGI-DAI, the average duration of the Dublin procedure between the issuance of a request and the transfer is 2-3 months. The average duration of the process between acceptance of responsibility and transfer takes one month.^[33] In Bucharest, and Şomcuta Mare the stakeholders reported no transfers. For 2023 and 2024, IGI-DAI did not indicate an average duration of the process.

Romania issued 551 requests and implemented 11 transfers in 2022, thereby indicating a transfer rate of 1.99 %.^[34] Based on the numbers communicated by IGI-DAI for 2023, with 1,288 requests and 99 transfers, the transfer rate was of 7.69% in 2023. No data were available for 2024.

The total number of transfers actually carried out under the Dublin “take back” procedure in 2025 was 41. The distribution of the total number of Dublin transfers carried out, by sending country (including country name and number of transfers) was the following: Austria (9), Czech Republic (3), Germany (21), France (2), Netherlands (3), Norway (2), Slovakia (1). [35]

There were no cases in which the discretionary clause was applied, according to Article 17(1).[36]

Personal interview

According to the law, if during the preliminary interview the answers of the asylum applicant indicate the necessity to start the Dublin procedure, the preliminary interview is conducted pursuant to Article 5 of the Dublin Regulation.^[37]

As of 2022, in Şomcuta Mare the Dublin interview was held during the preliminary interview; there is a special column dedicated to questions related to the Dublin procedure asking whether they had previously applied for asylum in another Member State. The officer in charge of fingerprinting and photographing the asylum applicants holds the interview. In Rădăuţi, the Dublin interview is held after the preliminary interview. In Galaţi the interview is conducted after the preliminary interview by the officer in charge of fingerprinting and photographing the applicants, also in 2023. In Giurgiu, the Dublin interview is conducted when, on the basis of the applicant’s statements and other documents, the officers determine the need to start the Dublin procedure; this is usually decided after the applicant’s preliminary interview. In Timișoara, according to the director of IGI-DAI Timișoara, the Dublin interview is an annex to the preliminary interview. The annex includes questions regarding presence in the respective Member State, knowledge of any decision taken on their application, willingness to return there. The interview is carried out by the same officer who conducts the preliminary interview.

The interview in the Dublin procedure takes place faster than in the regular procedure, even on the same day as the preliminary interview. A copy of the transcript of the interview is not handed over to the asylum applicant after the interview. However, they may request it under the provisions of the Asylum Act.^[38] The modalities are the same as the regular procedure as regards the other aspects. There is no available or update information in this matter for 2024 and 2025.

Appeal

Article 121 of the Asylum Act establishes the conditions of appeal in case of the Dublin procedure. The decision rejecting access to the asylum procedure in Romania and ordering the transfer to the responsible Member State may be challenged within 5 days of its communication. The transfer to the responsible Member State shall be suspended until the expiry of the legal deadline for filing the appeal.

In contrast with the regular procedure, lodging the appeal in the Dublin procedure does not have automatic suspensive effect. When appealing, the applicant may also request the suspension of the implementation of the transfer decision.^[39] The request for suspension is decided urgently in the council chamber by final conclusion, and the parties are summoned.^[40] The implementation of the transfer decision is suspended until the court decides on the request for suspension.^[41]

In situations that could not have been taken into consideration at the moment of issuing the decision, the case officer may, ex officio, decide to suspend the transfer decision until the court has ruled on the appeal. The measure is communicated to the applicant, according to the provisions on communication of decisions in the regular procedure.^[42]

The court shall settle the case within maximum 30 days.^[43] The competent court is the Regional Court (Judecatoria) with territorial jurisdiction over the area in which IGI has issued the decision.^[44] The decision of the court is final.^[45]

If the court admits the appeal and decides that the application for international protection in Romania should be resumed and the applicant has already been transferred to the responsible Member State, IGI shall take the necessary steps to readmit them to the territory of Romania.^[46]

No appeals were registered by the Regional Courts, according to the information provided. In 2023, according with data provided by IGI-DAI^[47], a total of 21 appeals were formulated by asylum applicants subjected to transfer to another country as part of the Dublin procedure (10 in Bucharest, 2 in Rădăuţi and 9 in Timisoara). No further details were provided. There is no information available for 2024 and 2025.

Legal assistance

According to Article 127 of the Asylum Act, an asylum applicant subject to the Dublin procedure has the same rights and obligations as an asylum applicant in the regular procedure until the date when the transfer is effectively carried out. Hence, they also have access to free legal assistance.

Asylum applicants have the same conditions to access legal assistance in the Dublin procedure as those subject to the regular procedure (see Regular Procedure: Legal Assistance). The only difference, which might be problematic, is the 5-day deadline to lodge an appeal against a Dublin decision. Nevertheless, legal counsellors have not reported any problems in filing appeals against negative decisions.

Suspension of transfers

Greece: Romania resumed Dublin procedures to Greece as of 1 October 2018.^[48] 73 outgoing requests were made to Greece in 2022, according to the statistics provided by IGI-DAI and no transfers to Greece were carried out.^[49] The directors of the regional centres stated that transfers to Greece are not carried out. In 2023, transfers to Greece were not carried out.^[50] In 2024, although Romania continued to submit outgoing Dublin requests to Greece (a total of 2 take back requests, as indicated by IGI), no transfers to Greece were carried out, maintaining the trend observed in previous years.^[51]

Bulgaria: The highest number of “take back” requests (205) were issued to Bulgaria in 2022 but only two transfers were carried out.^[52] In 2023, one request was sent and one transfer was implemented.  For 2024 there was no information provided. In 2024, Romania submitted a total of 163 “take back” requests and 11 “take charge” requests to Bulgaria. According to IGI data, a total of 174 requests were issued, and 4 transfers to Bulgaria were effectively carried out, indicating a modest increase in actual transfers compared to previous years.^[53]

The situation of Dublin returnees

The Asylum Act includes provisions concerning cases of express and tacit withdrawal of an asylum application.^[54] An implicit or tacit withdrawal of an asylum application occurs when the applicant is not present on the scheduled time for the preliminary interview or personal interview, without presenting good reasons for their absence.^[55] In case of tacit withdrawal, IGI-DAI writes a report regarding the absence of the asylum applicant from the interview.^[56] In these cases, the decision to close the file shall be issued after the expiration of a period of 30 days from the date of the aforementioned report.^[57]

When the asylum applicant expressly withdraws their asylum claim, this is considered an explicit withdrawal of the asylum application.^[58] The asylum applicant shall be informed of the consequences of their withdrawal in a language they understand or are reasonably supposed to understand.^[59]

When an asylum application was tacitly withdrawn and the asylum procedure was discontinued (i.e. the case of a person who left Romania and moved to another EU Member State), if the person makes an asylum claim within 9 months of the decision to close the file issued for implicit withdrawal, the asylum procedure may be continued.^[60] If the time limit has expired, the asylum claim is considered a Subsequent Application.

The legal framework is different when a person has left the territory for at least 3 months or had been removed to a third country or to the country of origin under Articles 19(2) and (3) of the Dublin Regulation and, consequently, the asylum procedure was discontinued by a decision closing the file. In this case, a new claim lodged successively in Romania is not considered as a subsequent application.^[61]

Therefore, persons who expressly withdrew their asylum applications without leaving the territory of the EU or being returned to a third country or the country of origin, cannot continue their asylum procedure in case of return to Romania. As a consequence, they will have to lodge a subsequent application.

It should be noted that the Asylum Act does not fully comply with Article 18(2) of the Dublin Regulation, which allows applicants whose claims have been withdrawn to have access to the procedure without lodging a subsequent application.

For persons returned to Romania who have been previously interviewed and received a negative decision in the administrative phase of the procedure and have not sought judicial remedy, the asylum procedure does not continue. They may only lodge a subsequent application. For persons returned to Romania who have not been previously interviewed the asylum procedure continues.

In 2025, Romania received 1,948 incoming Dublin requests and carried out 41 incoming transfers, according to official data provided by IGI, reflecting a significant decrease compared to 2024.[62] In 2024, Romania received 3,122 incoming Dublin requests and carried out 161 incoming transfers, according to official data provided by IGI, reflecting a decrease in transfers compared to 2023.^[63]

In 2023, KlikAktiv and ProAsyl^[64] reported cases of “formalised push-backs” between Romania and Serbia which clearly violated people’s right to seek asylum and the principle of non-refoulement with deportations of third country nationals, including people seeking international protection, back to Serbia by applying the readmission agreement between the EU and Serbia without an effective assessment of protection needs or asylum claims. One person seeking international protection was deported from Romania to Serbia immediately after he was identified on Romanian territory. Cases of Dublin returnees transferred back to Romania then being further deported to Serbia based on the readmission agreement were also reported. No cases were reported in 2024 and 2025.

[1] Information provided by IGI-DAI, 02 March 2026.

[2] Information provided by IGI-DAI, 02 March 2026.

[3] ibid.

[4] ibid.

[5] ibid.

^[6] ibid., 23 January 2025.

[7] ibid., 02 March 2026.

[8] ibid.

[9] ibid.

[10] ibid.

[11] ibid.

[12] ibid.

^[13] Information provided by CNRR February 2025.

[14] ibid., 03 February 2026.

[15] ibid.

^[16] Information provided by IGI-DAI, 22 February 2023.

^[17] ibid. 18 January 2024.

[18] Information provided by IGI-DAI, 02 March 2026.

^[19] In accordance with Article 19(a) Asylum Act.

^[20] Information provided by IGI-DAI, 18 January 2024.

^[21] Article 18(3) Asylum Decree.

^[22] Information provided by CNRR in February 2025. Information confirmed by CNRR, 03 February 2026.

[23] ibid., 03 February 2026.

^[24] Information provided by IGI-DAI, 18 January 2024.

[25] Information provided by CNRR, 03 February 2026.

^[26] Article 19^1(1) -(2) Asylum Act.

^[27] ibid. Article 19^2(1)(a).

^[28] ibid. Article 19^2(1)(b).

^[29] ibid. Article 19^2(1)(d).

^[30] ibid. Article 19^2(3).

^[31] ibid. Articles 19^3 and 19^4.

^[32] ibid. Article 19^14(10).

^[33] Information provided by IGI-DAI, 11 March 2022.

^[34] ibid. 22 February 2023.

[35] Information provided by IGI-DAI, 02 March 2026.

[36] ibid.

^[37] Article 43(3) Asylum Act.

^[38] Article 17(1) (f^1) sets out the right to have access, personally or through a representative, to the information contained in the personal file, unless the disclosure of the information or sources, from which it was obtained would jeopardize the national security, the organisations or persons who provided that information, or if it would be prejudicial to the examination of the application for international protection. Access to the information in the personal file is based on a request addressed to the specialised asylum structure of IGI. At the request of the applicant for international protection, copies of documents from the personal file may be issued free of charge, in accordance with the provisions of the present law.

^[39] Article 121(3) Asylum Act.

^[40] ibid.

^[41] ibid. Article 121(4).

^[42] ibid. Article 121(5).

^[43] ibid. Article 121(6).

^[44] ibid. Article 121(2).

^[45] ibid. Article 121(7).

^[46] ibid. Article 121(8).

^[47] Information provided by IGI-DAI, 18 January 2024.

^[48] ibid., 5 March 2019.

^[49] ibid., 22 February 2023.

^[50] ibid., 18 January 2024.

^[51] ibid., 23 January 2025.

^[52]  ibid., 18 January 2024.

^[53] ibid. 23 January 2025.

^[54] Article 51 Asylum Act.

^[55] ibid. Article 51(1)(b).

^[56] ibid. Article 51(3).

^[57] ibid. Article 51(5).

^[58] ibid. Article 51(1)(a).

^[59] ibid. Article 51(2).

^[60] ibid. Article 94^1.

^[61] ibid. Article 94^1(1)(a.

[62] Information provided by IGI-DAI, 02 March 2026.

^[63] ibid. 23 January 2025.

^[64] KlikAktiv, Pro Asyl, Formalizing Pushbacks – The use of readmission agreements in pushback operations at the Serbian-Romanian border, 2023, available here.