Dublin

Author

Swiss Refugee Council Visit Website

General

If the preliminary investigations in the preparatory phase indicate that another Member State might be responsible for processing the asylum application according to the Dublin III Regulation, a request for taking charge or taking back is submitted to the relevant State. Under the Asylum Act, a Dublin procedure formally begins with the submission of the request to take charge or take back and lasts until the transfer to the competent Dublin State or the decision of SEM to examine the application on the merits in a national procedure.[1] In case of a Dublin procedure, the SEM has to examine whether grounds exist to make use of the sovereignty clause. If such grounds exist, Switzerland takes over the responsibility for examining the application even if another Member State would be responsible according to the Dublin Regulation. In all the other cases where a decision to dismiss the application without examining the substance of the case has been taken, the SEM examines if the transfer of the applicant to the receiving State is lawful, reasonable and possible.

Dublin statistics: 2024

In 2024,[2] the SEM reported to have sent 9,947 outgoing requests, mainly to Italy, Germany, Croatia and France, and to have implemented 2,491 outgoing transfers to Germany, Croatia, France, Spain, Netherlands and Austria. The SEM reported 4,734 incoming requests, mainly from Germany and, and 869 implemented incoming transfers.

The data concerning 2024 presented in the table below uses data[3] from SEM regarding the countries with the highest numbers for each procedure. However, particularly in the case of Switzerland, these numbers should be used with caution as there have been in previous years major discrepancies between data reported at the national level by SEM and data presented by Eurostat.

Source: SEM, asylum statistics (7-50)

The Dublin III Regulation is applied directly since 1 January 2014.

Application of the Dublin criteria

According to the SEM, in 2024 Switzerland issued a total of 9,947 take charge or take back requests to other Member States, compared to 12,933 in 2023; 8,008 in 2022 and 4,904 in 2021. They were based on the following criteria:

Source: Information provided by the SEM, March 2025.  

The FAC clarified in 2015 that the presence of a family member or sibling in a pending asylum procedure in Switzerland qualifies as “legally present” for the purposes of Article 8(1) of the Dublin III Regulation.[7] It also confirmed that Article 9 and 10 of the Dublin III Regulation are directly applicable, and that there is a reduced standard of proof to establish the competence of a Member State in the Dublin procedure.[8]

The family criteria in particular are generally applied narrowly. The SEM’s practice regarding the effective relationship and the definition of family members in the Dublin III Regulation is strict.[9]

In a leading judgment of January 2021, the Court ruled for the first time regarding the established right of residence as a prerequisite for relying on Article 8 ECHR. It stated that a family can, in principle, request that its rights be considered in light of Article 8 ECHR, regardless of the residence status of the family member living in Switzerland. Additionally, it stated that Article 8 para 1 ECHR is only violated if a balancing of interests leads to the result that the private interests of the persons concerned in the continuation of family life in Switzerland outweigh public interests in the transfer of a family member to the family member to the member state originally found responsible.[10]

The dependent persons and discretionary clauses

Article 16 of the Dublin III Regulation must be used if such a constellation is the case, if an actual dependency is given, Article 16 counts as further criteria to determine the member state responsible.[11]

According to the jurisprudence of the FAC, the sovereignty clause in Article 17 of the Dublin Regulation is not self-executing, which means that that applicants can only rely on the clause in connection with another provision of national law.[12] The clause must be applied though if the transfer to the responsible Dublin State would violate one of Switzerland’s international obligations, Article 29a(3) AO1 provides the possibility to apply the sovereignty clause on humanitarian grounds. There are no general criteria publicly available in Switzerland on when the humanitarian clause or the sovereignty clause are implemented. According to the FAC, the criteria must be transparent, objective, and comprehensible.[13] The SEM is very reluctant to show in a transparent manner which criteria are decisive for the application of the sovereignty clause. The FAC competence to examine the SEM’s decision regarding humanitarian reasons is very limited, which leads to less jurisprudence and transparency on the issue. However, the Court has sent some cases back to the SEM, notably because it had failed to consider whether to apply a discretionary clause (see section on Dublin: Appeal).[14]

According to Swiss case law,[15] the interpretation of humanitarian reasons should be similar to the interpretation of the humanitarian clause of the Dublin Regulation.[16] Therefore, a sharp distinction cannot be made between the grounds mostly accepted by Swiss authorities to use the sovereignty clause and grounds mostly accepted to use the humanitarian clause. In most cases in which Switzerland decides to examine an application even if another state is responsible, the cases concern EU Member States with problematic conditions. Another category are particularly vulnerable persons, for example families (especially single mothers with children) or persons with severe medical problems that run a high risk of not receiving the essential care because of the deficiencies of the reception conditions or of the asylum system in the responsible Member State.[17] However, the threshold for the application of the humanitarian clause is high. A high risk of detention in case of a transfer back to the responsible state has also been stated as a reason (for further information see section on Dublin: Appeal).[18]

In a leading judgment from 2021, the FAC confirmed that asylum applicants in Dublin procedures can invoke Article 8 ECHR if they have family members with a temporary admission in Switzerland. The temporary admission status will then be taken into account as one of the factors when deciding on the balance of interests in the sense of Article 8(2) ECHR.[19] This is a new development for Dublin, as Swiss practice in other areas generally considers a “stable residence status” in Switzerland as a prerequisite for invoking Article 8 ECHR and thus for examining Article 8 (2) ECHR, and a temporary admission usually not being considered stable enough (except in special individual circumstances).

In 2024, the SEM applied the sovereignty clause in 1,058 cases, compared to 373 cases in 2023, 484 cases in 2022, 672 cases in 2021, 546 cases in 2020 and 859 cases in 2019. In 2024, 681 cases concerned applications for which Italy[20] would have been competent according to the Regulation, 284 Greece, 40 Croatia, 12 France, and 11 Hungary.[21]

These figures show that, like the family criteria, the humanitarian clause and the sovereignty clause are only rarely applied by Switzerland.[22]

Procedure

The SEM has to transmit the fingerprints of applicants to the Central Unit of the Eurodac System.[25] The Federal Council has the possibility to provide exceptions for children under the age of 14.[26] In practice, all applicants over 14 years of age are systematically fingerprinted and checked in Eurodac after the registration of their application in Switzerland. This applies to all asylum procedures carried out in Switzerland, regardless of where an application is filed. The Dublin procedure is systematically applied in all cases where the data check or other indications suggest that another Dublin Member State is responsible for examining an asylum application.[27]

The FAC ruled that if a person fails to cooperate with fingerprinting, this can be considered as a severe violation of the duty to cooperate according to the Asylum Act. This is also the case if the asylum applicant wilfully destroys the skin of their fingertips. However, the SEM must clarify with an expert whether or not the modification of the fingertips was wilful or due to external influences.[28] Article 8(3-bis) of the Asylum Act states that persons who fail to cooperate without valid reason lose their right to have the proceedings continued. Their applications are cancelled without a formal decision being taken and no new application may be filed within three years; the foregoing is subject to compliance with the UN-Refugee Convention.

If another Dublin State is presumed responsible for the examination of the asylum application, the applicant is granted the right to be heard.[29] This hearing can take place either orally or in writing[30] and provides the opportunity for the applicant to make a statement and to present reasons against a transfer to the responsible state. Therefore, it must take place before the take charge or take back request is sent to the respective country. In practice, the right to be heard is mostly only granted once and is carried out orally. If a Eurodac hit is found or other evidence is available, the right to be heard is already granted during the first interview conducted by the SEM.

In principle, the applicant is entitled to access to the files relevant for the decision-making.[31] Access can only be refused if this would be contrary to essential public interest, essential private interests, or interests of non-completed official investigations.[32] In general, access to the files is not granted automatically, only upon explicit request. However, in case of an inadmissibility decision (all Dublin transfer decisions are inadmissibility decisions), copies of the files are annexed to the decision if enforcement of the removal has been ordered.[33] The files should include information about the evidence on which the take back request was made and the reply of the concerned Member State. In case of Dublin transfer decisions, the SEM notifies the decision to the service provider tasked with providing legal representation, who shall inform the legal representative on the same day,[34] who will inform the person concerned.

According to Article 37 AsylA, the notification of a Dublin decision should occur within three working days after the requested state has agreed to take charge or take back the applicant. In 2024 this deadline was not respected, notifications took place on average 18 days after the answer of the requested state.[35]

Individualised guarantees

Italy

Regarding the development and jurisprudence following the Tarakhel judgment[36] of the ECtHR, please consult older versions of this report.[37]

As Italy announced in December 2022 to the other Dublin Units that it will no longer accept incoming Dublin transfers and this is still the case in December 2024, Italy has not been a relevant Dublin state for Switzerland in 2024 and there is no relevant jurisprudence.

Bulgaria

On 11 February 2020, the FAC issued a reference judgement on the question of systemic deficiencies in Bulgaria.[38] Although the Court itself explained in a very detailed manner the problems in the Bulgarian asylum system, it concluded that there are no systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and reception conditions in Bulgaria which would justify a complete suspension of transfers to that country. A case-by-case examination will be required to determine whether or not the transfer to that country of a particular asylum applicant should be suspended. The Court also mentioned the possibility to request individual guarantees from the Bulgarian authorities. In April 2020, the Court ruled, in a case concerning a family, that the SEM had not sufficiently examined the reception conditions in Bulgaria and would need to require individual guarantees of adequate accommodation for the family.[39]

Others

Romania: A case against a Dublin transfer of an asylum applicant from Afghanistan from Switzerland to Romania was decided on by the UN-CAT in May 2024.[40] The CAT took note of the applicant’s claim of ill-treatment in Romania and referred to reports documenting pushback operations in Romania. However, it recalled that the occurrence of human rights violations alone is not sufficient to conclude that the applicant personally faces a real risk of being tortured if returned to Romania. The CAT also noted that there was a lack of evidence to support the applicant’s allegations of torture and ill-treatment at the hands of the Romanian police, as although he had submitted a photograph of his broken fingernails, there was no evidence to link the photograph to the applicant, the police or the time of the incident, and no complaint had been made to the Romanian authorities about the incident. Regarding the applicant’s claim that he would not have access to a fair and equitable asylum procedure in Romania and would face the risk of chain refoulement to Afghanistan, the CAT found that while there were reports of deficiencies in the Romanian asylum procedure, there was no concrete evidence that the applicant himself would not benefit from a fair asylum procedure. The CAT also found that there was no evidence that the applicant had sought medical care in Romania and that he had been denied such care. The CAT concluded that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish that the applicant’s removal to Romania would expose him to a real, foreseeable, personal and present danger of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention against Torture. Nevertheless, the committee called on Switzerland to inform Romania of the applicant’s medical needs and to ensure that the applicant is not detained upon arrival.

Greece: In August 2024, the SEM issued several Dublin decisions to Greece. To the knowledge of the SRC, all concerned healthy men who were nationals from Türkiye. Appeals are pending at the FAC, a reference judgment is expected in 2025. The Greek authorities agreed to the transfer and issued so-called guarantees which basically assured the country’s intention to comply with their international obligations.

The Court has also, in past decisions, asked for individual guarantees regarding reception conditions and access to medical treatment for mentally ill persons (not families) and regarding Hungary and Slovenia.[41] The Court further issued a decision in a Dublin case regarding Greece (as of 2020 only applying to persons with a Greek visa): in cases of seriously ill applicants, the SEM must obtain individual guarantees from Greek authorities concerning the immediate access to medical care after transfer.[42] The Court has also required from SEM obtaining individual guarantees in a case concerning a Dublin transfer to Spain.[43]

Transfers

According to the SEM, in 2024 it took on average 18 days to issue a Dublin decision after the receipt of a positive answer from the requested Member State.[44] Furthermore, on average 195 days passed between the Dublin transfer decision and the actual transfer. One reason for this long delay could be the prolongation of the transfer deadline in case of a suspension of the execution because of an appeal, suspension which must be requested. The transfer could then be further delayed if the FAC sent the case back to the SEM for additional clarifications and a new decision, which in turn can be appealed again. In 2024, of a total of 9,947 Dublin-out procedures, in 7,926 cases the requested member state answered positively, of those, 2,491 transfers took place.[45]

According to the Foreign Nationals and Integration Act, an applicant may already be detained during the preparation of the decision on residence status under certain circumstances. Applicants within a Dublin procedure may be detained if there are specific indications that the person intends to evade removal. The FAC as well as the Federal Supreme Court have defined some important basic rules for detention in Dublin cases (see section on Grounds for Detention: Dublin Procedure). The use of detention differs between cantons. In 2024, a total of 1,010 persons were placed in detention for the purpose of the Dublin III Regulation. 759 Dublin transfers took place from detention.[46]

As the Dublin III Regulation is directly applied in Switzerland, voluntary transfers should in principle be possible,[47] however they always take place under control of the authorities. The SEM does not gather information on the nature of the transfer.[48] Since the leading decision of the FAC in 2010, the transfer can no longer be enforced immediately after the notification of the decision, even if appeals against Dublin transfer decisions have no suspensive effect. A time limit of five days must be granted, allowing the applicant concerned to leave Switzerland or to make an appeal and to ask for suspensive effect.[49] This case law has since been codified in the Asylum Act.[50] As a result, there are at least ten working days between the date of the opening of the Dublin decision and the enforcement of the removal.

In a decision to strike out the application from the list of cases, the ECtHR considered the access to an effective remedy in Dublin cases in Switzerland sufficient.[51] This decision was problematic because the ECtHR based it on a wrong interpretation of Swiss law: it cited the provision in the Asylum Act that relates to non-Dublin-cases, in which the asylum applicant can stay on Swiss territory until the end of the proceedings. On the contrary, in Dublin cases this is precisely not the case, as there is no automatic suspensive effect.

The cantons are responsible for carrying out the Dublin-transfers ordered by the SEM. Article 89b AsylA provides that if a canton does not fulfil or only partially fulfils its obligations with regard to the execution of removal, without objective reasons, the Confederation may claim the reimbursement of fixed compensation already paid. Similarly, if this breach leads to an extension of the duration of the stay of the person concerned in Switzerland, the Confederation may waive the payment of these subsidies.[52]

Personal interview

The SEM carries out the whole first instance procedure and is also responsible for conducting the interviews with the applicants during the asylum procedure, including the Dublin procedure.

During the preparatory phase, all applicants undergo a short preliminary interview (see section on Regular procedure: Personal interview) focusing mainly on their identity and journey to Switzerland. The SEM is allowed to ask summarily the reasons for seeking asylum but it rarely does so during this so-called Dublin interview.[53] The interview is usually conducted in the presence of the applicant’s legal representative and is usually translated over the phone by an interpreter if necessary.[54] The interview is recorded in writing in the form of a summary indicating the duration of the interview and is retranslated before being signed by the applicant and their legal representative. In 2024, the SEM conducted 5,538 Dublin interviews.[55]

If the SEM intends to take a Dublin transfer decision (inadmissibility decision), the applicant is granted the right to be heard at the end of the personal interview,[56] and they do not get a second interview regarding the grounds for asylum. The omission of the second interview in cases of Dublin and other inadmissibility decisions constitutes the fundamental difference between the personal interview within the Dublin procedure and the additional personal interviews within the regular asylum procedure (accelerated and expanded) where the application is examined in substance (see Regular Procedure: Personal Interview).

Appeal

In case of a Dublin transfer decision (inadmissibility decision), an appeal can be submitted – as in all the other cases – to the FAC. The time limit to lodge an appeal against a Dublin transfer decision is five working days.[57]

Contrary to other asylum appeals, appeals against Dublin transfer decisions (inadmissibility decisions) do not have automatic suspensive effect. However, as mentioned in Dublin: Procedure, transfers cannot be enforced immediately after the notification of the decision. A delay of five working days must be granted.[58] This allows the concerned applicant to make an appeal and to request that the execution of the appealed decision be suspended. The Court has to decide on the suspensive effect within another five working days.[59] In practice, this is granted in almost all cases that cannot be decided upon immediately.[60]

In the appeal procedure (applies also to the Dublin procedure), the FAC has the possibility to order a hearing if the facts are not clear enough.[61] In practice, it does not make use of this possibility.[62]

To a certain extent, the Court considers the reception conditions and the procedural guarantees in the responsible Member States. This is reflected in different leading cases, notably concerning Dublin Member States such as Greece, Hungary, Italy, Croatia or Bulgaria (see Dublin: Suspension of Transfers).

However, the Court can only examine errors of law, not whether or not the decision of the determining authority was “appropriate” (see section on Regular Procedure: Appeal). This limitation has particularly impact on the Dublin procedure. Many Dublin cases do not fall under the compulsory criteria of the Dublin III Regulation or under Articles 3 or 8 ECHR. Therefore, especially in cases regarding family ties that fall outside those strict definitions, the interpretation of humanitarian reasons for which Switzerland can apply the sovereignty clause becomes crucial. The Court stated that it is a question of “appropriateness” where the SEM has a margin of appreciation, whether there are humanitarian reasons for applying the sovereignty clause. The SEM must examine and motivate its reasoning for using or not using the sovereignty clause. As long as SEM decides within this margin, the Court cannot examine whether the decision was appropriate.

The FAC confirmed in a leading decision of 21 December 2017 that asylum applicants can rely on the correct application of the Dublin responsibility criteria, as an individual right, in line with the CJEU jurisprudence in Ghezelbash and Mengesteab.[63]

Legal assistance

Free legal assistance is ensured at first instance.[65] Therefore, in the Dublin procedure just as in the regular procedure, state-funded (but independent) free legal assistance is guaranteed to all applicants (see also Regular Procedure, Legal assistance). Access to legal assistance is also available for persons who ask for asylum in detention or prison.  For further information, see the general chapter on Registration of the asylum application.

The relatively short time limit of five working days for lodging an appeal against a Dublin transfer decision constitutes a real obstacle to appealing. This is even more problematic in cases where the mandated legal assistance decides not to appeal as it considers that lodging an appeal would be doomed to fail. In those cases, applicants could theoretically approach a non-state-funded entity for legal advice to ask for support. However, this is very difficult due to the remote locations of federal centres, given that most independent legal advisory offices are situated in urban areas. Additionally, if a lawyer of one of those offices decides to appeal, the time to gather all information needed is extremely short.

Suspension of transfers

In general, if transfers to other Dublin Member States are suspended, it is because of the application of the sovereignty or the humanitarian clause. The asylum application of the person concerned is then materially examined in Switzerland.

Greece: In November 2017, the SEM announced the reinstatement of Dublin procedures for cases in which the person was in possession of a Greek visa. This does not apply to vulnerable persons.[66] This means that in most of the cases Switzerland still relinquishes transfers to Greece and applies the sovereignty clause. This practice changed in August 2024, when the SEM issued several Dublin decisions regarding men that were nationals from Türkiye. The decisions were appealed, a reference judgement of the FAC is expected in 2025.

On the other hand, if the person already has a protection status in Greece (and therefore does not fall under the Dublin Regulation, but under the safe third country clause), the Swiss authorities are generally of the opinion that the person can be transferred there. For this purpose, a bilateral readmission agreement is used. For families with children, the Court considers the execution of the removal order only to be reasonable if favourable conditions or circumstances exist. The legal presumption of the reasonableness of enforcing removal was no longer upheld by the Court in the case of persons who, due to their particularly high vulnerability, run the risk of being permanently placed in severe distress if they return to Greece, because they are not able to claim the rights to which they are entitled on the spot by their own efforts. The Court therefore considers the removal of extremely vulnerable persons entitled to protection, such as unaccompanied minors or persons whose mental or physical health is impaired in a particularly serious manner, to be unreasonable in principle, unless there are particularly favourable circumstances on which it can exceptionally be assumed that the removal is reasonable.[67]

According to SEM statistics, there was one transfer to Greece under Dublin and 82 persons were transferred under the readmission agreement in 2024,[68] compared to 0 persons transferred under Dublin and 30 under the readmission agreement in 2023.[69] The agreement applies to persons having received international protection in Greece. The SEM applied the sovereignty clause in 284 cases in 2024, compared to 152 in 2023.[70]

Hungary: In May 2017 the FAC issued a reference judgment in which it summarised the latest developments in the Hungarian asylum system and the effects on Dublin returnees.[71] The Court highlighted the responsibility of the SEM to gather all elements necessary for the assessment, not the responsibility of the appeal authority to carry out complex supplementary investigations. Otherwise, the FAC would overstep its jurisdiction with a decision on the merits of the matter and deprive the party concerned of the legal right of appeal. Therefore, the Court annulled the contested decision and referred it back to the SEM for a full determination of the facts and a new decision, which resulted in the initiation of the national procedure in all cases known to the SRC.

According to SEM statistics, there were no transfers to Hungary under Dublin in 2024 just as in the previous years. On the other hand, in 2024 there were 15 transfers under the bilateral readmission agreement between Switzerland and Hungary which applies to persons having received international protection in Hungary, compared to 11 in 2022.[72] The SEM applied the sovereignty clause 11 times in 2024.[73]

Italy:[74] Swiss practice regarding Italy remains very strict and the Court still states that there are no systemic deficiencies. The sovereignty clause is only applied in cases of very vulnerable persons, or in case of a combination of different special circumstances. Guarantees have to be obtained from the Italian authorities in family cases,[75] as well as in take-back procedures for persons with serious health issues.[76]  Since December 2022, no Dublin transfers to Italy could take place, following a communication from the Italian authorities to all Dublin Units claiming a lack of reception capacity.  Nevertheless, Dublin decisions were issued and after six months the national procedure was started. In 2024, this was most likely the reason for the majority of the 681 applications of the sovereignty clause.

Bulgaria:[77] Dublin decisions are generally issued in cases concerning Bulgaria, even in the case of families and vulnerable persons.[78] In a decision from September 2017,[79] the Court implied doubts about the procedure leading up to the rejection of the applicant’s claim in Bulgaria.

On 11 February 2020 the Court issued a reference judgement on the question of systemic deficiencies in Bulgaria.[80] Although the Court itself explained in a very detailed manner the problems in the Bulgarian asylum system, it concluded that there were no systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and reception conditions in Bulgaria which would justify a complete suspension of transfers to that country. A case-by-case examination will be required to determine whether the transfer to that country of a particular asylum applicant should be suspended. The Court also mentioned the possibility to request individual guarantees from the Bulgarian authorities (for further information see also the section on Individual guarantees above under Procedure).

In October 2022, the Court dealt[81] with a Dublin Bulgaria case, the Afghan complainant was suffering from health problems and drug addiction. He had been detained and mistreated in Bulgaria. The application for readmission to Bulgaria did not contain any information on the man’s health condition and remained unanswered. The SEM used text modules to state that there were no indications of systemic deficiencies in Bulgaria and that the country had sufficient infrastructure. On the one hand, the Court considered the legally relevant medical facts to be incomplete. It also states that it cannot be assumed without further ado that the conditions in Bulgaria meet the requirements of international law. Furthermore, in view of the protection quotas for Afghans in Bulgaria, the Court considered it questionable whether the Bulgarian authorities take sufficient account of the non-refoulement requirement. Furthermore, the SEM had failed to deal with the effects of the war in Ukraine. Next, the SEM was asked to comment on the admissibility and reasonableness of a transfer to Bulgaria against the background of the SRC report on police violence in Bulgaria and Croatia.[82]

In 2024, 23 Dublin transfers to Bulgaria took place, compared to 37 in 2023. In 3 cases, Switzerland applied the sovereignty clause.

Malta: According to its own manual,[83] the SEM does not transfer vulnerable asylum applicants to Malta if they are facing detention. 2 transfers took place to Malta under the Dublin Regulation in 2024, 4 took place in 2023.[84]

Croatia: In a leading judgment[85] of March 2023, the FAC assumed that persons will have access to the asylum procedure in Croatia, regardless of whether they are transferred to Croatia by means of a take back or take-charge procedure. The court denied the existence of systemic deficiencies in the Croatian asylum system and clarified that a transfer should only be dispensed with in exceptional cases if it can be shown that the general assumption does not apply in the individual case.

354 persons were transferred to Croatia under Dublin in 2024, compared to 211 transfers in 2023.[86] In 40 cases, the sovereignty clause was applied.

The situation of Dublin returnees

Dublin transfers to Switzerland are mainly enforced by air to the airports of Zurich, Geneva and Basel, but they can also take place by land from neighbouring countries.

Dublin returnees are received by the police at the airport or the border post. If the person has been transferred according to a ‘take back’ request, meaning that they have already applied for asylum in Switzerland in the past, they will have to report to the migration authorities of the canton to which they had been attributed (if such attribution had already taken place), regardless of the state of the procedure. The procedure will then be resumed, if there has not yet been a negative decision on the merits. If the person is transferred according to a ‘take charge’ request, meaning that they have not applied for asylum in Switzerland before, they must report to the federal asylum centre the police points them to. The police give the person a public transport ticket to facilitate the journey to the cantonal migration office or the federal asylum centre. If the person has health problems that require the organisation of a transfer, either the canton or the federal asylum centre will organise the transfer from the airport or border post.[87]

No obstacles for applicants transferred back to Switzerland under Dublin have been observed, including in 2024.

[1] Article 26b AsylA.

[2] SEM, asylum statistics, (7-50).

[3] SEM, asylum statistics, (7-50).

[4] 16 outgoing requests were not categorised.

[5] 66 outgoing requests were not categorised.

[6] SEM, asylum statistics, (7-50), 44 outgoing requests were not categorised.

[7] FAC, Decision D-5785/2015, 10 March 2016.

[8] FAC, Decision E-6513/2014, 3 December 2015.

[9] See for example: FAC, Decision ATAF 2017/VI/1, 10 February 2017.

[10] FAC, Decision ATAF 2021 VI/1, 25 January 2021. See here.

[11] FAC, Decision ATAF 2017 VI/5, 11 May 2017.

[12] FAC, Decision E-5644/2009, 31 August 2010.

[13] FAC, Decision E-7896/2015, 23 June 2016.

[14] See for example: FAC, Decision D-3566/2018, 28 June 2018: Case of a woman whose parents were recognised as refugees in Switzerland and who herself was in a very bad state of health, the FAC recognised a mutual dependency between the daughter and her parents to such an extent that non-application of Article 16 of the Dublin Regulation could not be justified; the SEM was ordered to proceed with the material assessment of the applicant’s asylum claim under the national procedure.

[15] FAC, Decision E-7221/2009, 10 May 2011.

[16] Articles 16 and 17(2) Dublin III Regulation.

[17] For example: In Decision D-5221/2016, 31 October 2018 and Decision D-5407/2018, 31 October 2018, the FAC referred the cases back to the SEM to do a proper examination of a possible use of the sovereignty clause. The cases concerned families with a Dublin decision to Bulgaria, where they had been ill-treated and detained by the authorities.

[18] Jurisprudence and examples as well as historical explanations are provided in smaller size to facilitate the reading.

[19] FAC, Decision E-7092/2017, 25 January 2021.

[20] In 2024 Italy continued to refuse incoming Dublin transfers. The SEM nevertheless continued to issue Dublin decisions with return to Italy, but had to start the national procedure after the foreseen six months for a transfer in the Dublin-III-Regulation had passed.

[21] Data provided by the SEM, February 2025. 

[22] In November 2017, the SRC and a broad coalition of NGOs submitted to the Federal Council the “Dublin call” (Appel de Dublin). This call urges the authorities to handle the asylum applications lodged by vulnerable persons. For further information, see the website of the coalition available (in French) here.

[25] Article 102a^bis AsylA.

[26] Article 99 AsylA.

[27] Article 21(2) AsylA.

[28] FAC, Decision ATAF 2011/27, 30 September 2011.

[29] Article 36(1) AsylA.

[30] Article 29(2) Constitution.

[31] Article 26 APA.

[32] Article 27 APA.

[33] Article 17(5) AsylA.

[34] Article 12a(2) AsylA.

[35] Information provided by the SEM, February 2025.

[36] ECtHR, Tarakhel v. Switzerland, Application no. 29217/12, 4 November 2014, available here. The ECtHR found a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights if the Swiss authorities were to send an Afghan couple and their six children back to Italy under the Dublin Regulation without having first obtained individual guarantees from the Italian authorities that the applicants would be taken charge of in a manner adapted to the age of the children and that the family would be kept together.

[37] AIDA, Country Report: Switzerland, available here.

[38] FAC, Decision F-7195/2018, 11 February 2020.

[39] FAC, Decision D-5126/2018, 15 April 2020.

[40] CAT, communication no. 1096/2021, N.A. v. Switzerland, 9 May 2024.

[41] FAC, Decision D-2677/2015, 25 August 2015 regarding Slovenia and a mentally ill person who needs special trauma treatment. Tarakhel was not directly mentioned in the decision, but the Court states the need for guarantees. Regarding Hungary and a traumatised man: FAC, Decision D-6089/2014, 10 November 2014.

[42] FAC, Decision F-1850/2020, 6 March 2020, para 4.2.

[43] FAC, Decision E-3259/2019, 8 October 2019, para 6.7.

[44] Information provided by the SEM, May 2023.

[45] SEM statistics 2024 (7-50), available here. The numbers have to be read taking into account that they are not in direct relation as transfers can take place months after the acceptance of the take charge or take back request.

[46] Information provided by the SEM, May 2023.

[47] Article 29 Dublin III Regulation.

[48] Information provided by the SEM, 7 April 2022.

[49] FAC, ATAF 2010/1 = Decision E-5841/2009, 2 February 2010.

[50] Article 107a AsylA.

[51] ECtHR, M.G. and E.T. v. Switzerland, Application No 26456/14, 17 November 2016, available here.

[52] The Canton of Neuchatel appealed against this provision, arguing that the cantons should be given room for manoeuvre and not be required to carry out the transfers ordered by the SEM. Neuchâtel claimed before the FAC that the SEM violated the principle of the separation of powers, its right to be heard, and also that it made an inaccurate and incomplete finding of the relevant facts. The appeal was dismissed: FAC, Decision F-1724/2019, 27 June 2022 and F-1752/2019, 29 June 2022. See also the summaries realised by the EUAA here and here. The Federal Supreme Court, in the meantime, overturned one decision of the FAC (F-1724/2019): Federal Supreme Court, Decision 2C_694/2022, 21 December 2023, while it confirmed the other one (F-1752/2019): Federal Supreme Court, Decision 2C_692/2022, 22 February 2024.

[53] Article 26(3) AsylA.

[54] Article 19(2) AO1.

[55] Data provided by the SEM, February 2025.

[56] Article 36 AsylA.

[57] Article 108(3) AsylA.

[58] Article 107a(2) AsylA; FAC, ATAF 2010/1 = Decision E-5841/2009, 2 February 2010.

[59] Article 107a AsylA.

[60] Practice-based information by the SRC.

[61] Article 14 APA.

[62] Practice-based observation by the SRC.

[63] FAC, Decision E-1998/2016, 21 December 2017.

[65] Article 102f AsylA.

[66] FAC, Decision F-1850/2020, 6 May 2020, para 4.2.

[67] FAC, Decision E-3427/2021, E-3431/2021, 28 March 2022.

[68] SEM, asylum statistics (7-50 and 7-55), available here.

[69] SEM, asylum statistics (7-50 and 7-55), available here.

[70] Data provided by the SEM, March 2025.

[71] FAC, Decision D-7853/2015, 31 May 2017.

[72] SEM, asylum statistics, (7-50 and 7-55), available here.

[73] Information provided by the SEM, February 2025.

[74] Regarding reception conditions in Italy for Dublin Returnees and persons with international protection status please see: SRC, Reception conditions in Italy – Updated report on the situation of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of protection, in particular Dublin returnees, in Italy, January 2020, available here.

[75] FAC, Reference Decision F-6330/2020, 18 October 2021.

[76] FAC, Reference Decision D-4235/2021, 19 April 2022.

[77] For further details and case law, see previous updates of the AIDA Switzerland Country Report, available here.

[78] For example, in the case of a man who claimed to have been detained and mistreated in Bulgaria, with diabetes and psychological problems: FAC, Decision E-521/2016, 13 June 2016.

[79] FAC, Decision E-305/2017, 5 September 2017. For further details, see previous updates of the AIDA Switzerland Country Report, available here.

[80] FAC, Decision F-7195/2018, 11 February 2020.

[81] FAC, Decision F-2707/2022, 12 October 2022.

[82] SRC, Violences policières en Bulgarie et en Croatie : conséquences pour les transferts Dublin, 13 September 2022, available in French (and German and Italian) here.

[83] Manuel Asile et retour, C3 Procédure Dublin, available in French here.

[84] SEM, asylum statistics (7-50), available here.

[85] FAC, Reference Decision E-1488/2020, 22 March 2023, available in German here; FAC, media release of 31 March 2023, available in English (and German, French, Italian); SRC, media release of 31 March, available in French (and German) here.

[86] SEM, asylum statistics (7-50), available here.

[87] Information on the procedure for Dublin returnees has been provided by the SEM on 27 April 2021.