Dublin

Author

Asylkoordination Österreich Visit Website

General

Dublin statistics: 2024

As of December 2024, Austria carried out 1,184 (2023: 1,240) outgoing Dublin transfers and received 1,511 (2023: 2,166) incoming transfers.[1] In 2024, the main countries receiving outgoing transfers from Austria were Germany (24%), Croatia (21%) and Romania (12%).[2]

In December 2022 Italy announced a temporary stop of Dublin transfers to Italy due to “technical reasons”. There is no official information as to when Dublin transfers to Italy will resume.[3] In 2023 and 2024, no transfers to Italy took place.

 Dublin statistics: 1 January – 31 December 2024

Source: Eurostat, based on total requests (first time and re-examination), as of 05 May 2025; Ministry of Interior, Answer to parliamentary request 635/AB XXVIII. GP, 19 May 2025, available in German here.

Source: Eurostat, based on total requests (first time and re-examination), as of 23 May 2025

Source: Eurostat, based on total requests (first time and re-examination), as of 23 May 2025

Source: Ministry of Interior, information not published

Application of the Dublin criteria

If the special regulation due to threats to public security and order comes into effect (see Access to the Territory), third-country nationals will be returned to neighbouring countries. Since it would not be possible to lodge an asylum application, this would completely contravene the Dublin system.[4] As of 2024 such a regulation was never issued.

Austria applies the Dublin procedure systematically and, where it proves impossible to transfer an asylum applicant to one country, examines the criteria of the Regulation to determine whether the person can be sent to another country.[5]

Documentation and entry

The Dublin Regulation may be triggered if there is a so-called “Eurodac hit”, i.e. if the asylum applicant has obtained a visa from another Member State, if the asylum applicant admits that they entered the EU via another Member State or if there is a suspicion or circumstantial evidence indicating the asylum applicant entered via another Member State. Although there are other grounds applicable for determining a Member State’s responsibility under the Dublin III Regulation, these are the most common grounds applied in Austria.

After the CJEU ruling in Jafari,[6] which found that the state-organised transit through the Western Balkan route in 2015-2016 qualified as “illegal entry” under Article 13 of the Regulation, the VwGH dismissed the appeal against a transfer to Croatia on those grounds. The Court did not indicate that Austria applied the discretionary clauses in these cases.[7]

In a case concerning a person who transited through Bulgaria and following a short stay travelled to Serbia and then entered Hungary, without applying for asylum in any of these countries, the Administrative High Court ruled that the provisions of Article 13(1) in conjunction with Article 19(2) of the Dublin III Regulation and in the light of the A.S. ruling of the CJEU, can only be understood as meaning that the criterion of illegal entry, as defined in Article 13(1) of the Dublin III Regulation, is applicable if the asylum applicant did not apply for international protection in that Member State, but if that application was made in another Member State after a short-term voluntary exit to a third country. Bulgaria was therefore deemed responsible for the asylum application.[8]

Family unity

The BFA has put forward surprising arguments in the context of family reunification under the Dublin Regulation. In a case of an unaccompanied minor to whom a protection was granted in Austria, the Greek Asylum Service submitted a “take charge” request for the parents to be transferred from Greece to Austria. The BFA refused responsibility on the ground that the parents had deliberately accepted the separation from their minor child. The rejection of such requests is not considered a formal decision which may be legally challenged before the BVwG. Requests from Greece are also handled very slowly and take often more than a year, which is why Austria ends up being responsible for the asylum application by default. In 2022 Austria received 39 take back and take-charge requests from the Greek Dublin Unit, out of which 14 were accepted. Moreover, a total of 14 transfers were carried out (including transfers pending from the year before).[9] According to Eurostat as reported by Austria, Austria received 44 requests from Greece, including 22 take charge requests and 22 take back requests. Austria decided on 51 requests, potentially including some sent in 2022: 28 take charge and 23 take back requests were accepted. However, only 3 transfers took place in 2023, two based on article 8 (unaccompanied minor with a family member legally present in Austria), and one based on the humanitarian clause.

In 2017, the VwGH examined the question of whether an unaccompanied child could stay in Austria, whilst Italy had been determined as responsible for his family members. Whereas the BVwG had referred to the sovereignty clause of Article 17 of the Dublin Regulation in order to prevent a violation of the right to private and family life, the VwGH stated that Article 11 of the Dublin Regulation prevailed in order to ensure the unity of the family and the best interests of the child.[10]

In 2018, the BVwG had to rule on a case of family reunification concerning parents that had applied for asylum in Austria, while their minor child and the grandmother had applied for asylum in Greece. In accordance with the Dublin III Regulation, Greece requested Austria to be responsible for the applications. However, the BFA had doubts on whether family reunification would be in the best interests of the child and refused to take responsibility. The BVwG confirmed the rejection of the BFA. In the case of refusal of family reunification, the only available option for the requesting Member State is to request a re-examination. As regards the asylum applicant, they cannot act directly against the negative decision nor bring it to appeal, as this is a purely intergovernmental procedure. Therefore, in this case, it was the responsibility of Greece as the requesting Member State to challenge Austria’s refusal to grant family reunification. The revision was rejected by the High Administrative Court.[11]

As a consequence of two cases that asylkoordination österreich had put forward to the Ombudsman, the Minister of Interior and the Ombudsman agreed that the BFA should involve the Child and Youth Welfare Agency when it examines family reunification requests under the Dublin III Regulation to UAMs living in Austria.[12] However no changes have been noted in practice.[13]

In January 2021, a deportation of a family to Georgia in the middle of the night was debated publicly. One girl was born in Austria and resided in the country over ten years. The case shed light on the fact that children’s rights are often not taken into account in asylum procedures and decisions. The Ministry of Justice introduced a Child Welfare Commission headed by former presidential candidate Irmgrad Griss to evaluate the implementation of children’s rights in asylum procedures.[14] The Commission presented an elaborated report in July 2021 with many recommendations on how the best interest of the child could be guaranteed better in the asylum process, including reception conditions and Dublin III assessment. Recommendations for improvements were presented.[15] In July 2022, the former member of the Commission made a press conference in which they announced that an evaluation done by Asylkoordination, and the Vienna Refugee Law Clinic showed that improvement in practice is still very poor, recommendations are neglected by the authorities. They also demanded the introduction of a permanent monitoring board concerning children’s rights in Austria.[16] As of the end of 2024, there were no significant changes with regard to such a monitoring mechanism.

To demonstrate family ties, every asylum applicant must have mentioned the existence of other family members during asylum procedure, in Austria as well as in the other Member States where they have applied for asylum. Marriage certificates or birth certificates are required on a regular basis. Depending on the country of origin, these documents are surveyed by the Federal Bureau of Criminal Investigation to prove authenticity. Austria requires the original documents, where available, to be sent for verification and does not leave such verification to the other Member States.

DNA tests may be required to provide proof of family ties, but this is rare in practice. DNA tests should be paid by the asylum applicant. If a DNA test has been suggested[17] by the BFA or the Administrative Court and family links have been verified, asylum applicants may demand a refund of the costs from the BFA. The issue of DNA tests was discussed in the context of a legislative reform affecting Family Reunification but was ultimately not included in the reform.[18]

The High Administrative Court ruled in December 2022 concerning the responsibility of a state for family members: Article 9 of the Dublin III Regulation contains special jurisdiction for family members of beneficiaries of international protection. If the applicant has a family member – regardless of whether the family already existed in the country of origin – who is a beneficiary of international protection and has the right to reside in a Member State, that Member State is responsible for examining the application for international protection, provided that the persons concerned express this wish in writing. This regulation not only allows the persons concerned (the applicant and the beneficiaries of international protection) to have a say, but gives them the power to decide whether they want to be reunited ruling out the possibility that people be brought together against their will. The applicant must be informed of the requirement for such declarations within the framework of their right to information (cf. Art. 4 Para. 1 lit. b and c Dublin III Regulation) and, in the event of such a request by the applicant, it must be verified that the beneficiaries of the international protection agree to a reunification.[19]

Unaccompanied children

Following the judgment of the CJEU in M.A. which concerned Article 8(4) of the Dublin III Regulation,[20] for asylum applications lodged by unaccompanied children, the BFA ordered age assessments even in cases where there are no reasons for doubts in regard to the age of the asylum applicant.

In one case concerning a transfer to Hungary, the BFA considered that the deadline for replying to a request should be suspended until an age assessment is conducted. The VwGH disagreed, however, and ruled that the deadline had expired.[21] In 2018, there was another case related to the deadline for replying to a transfer request. In accordance with Article 21 (1) of the Dublin III Regulation, a request for transfer had been send to Croatia. Although the request was incomplete as it was missing the results of the medical age assessment of the child, the BFA considered that the available information was sufficient to conclude that the asylum applicant was an adult. However, the six-month transfer period was not triggered until the age report was received and Austria was therefore deemed responsible for the application.[22]

The VwGH further had to rule on a Dublin transfer to Bulgaria. The case concerned two brothers, one of whom was still a minor. Given that Bulgaria was already responsible for the asylum application of the older brother, the BFA concluded that Bulgaria should also be responsible for the asylum application of the minor, in compliance with the principle of family unity as defined in Article 20(3) of the Dublin III Regulation. The BFA had further assumed the minority of the younger brother without conducting any age assessment. The BVwG overturned the decision and stated that Art. 8(4) applied to the accompanied minor and that, subsequently, the adult was allowed to stay on the Austrian territory in accordance with Art. 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation. However, the VwGH followed the BFA and the adult’s asylum application was rejected in first instance, on the grounds that Bulgaria remained responsible for that application.[23]

Until 2022, it was not possible for an unaccompanied minor applying for international protection for example in Greece or Cyprus, to successfully challenge the rejection of a take charge request for family reunification before an Austrian court. In light of more recent developments, previous case law by the highest courts is likely to be considered outdated. In its judgment of 1 August 2022 in Case C-19/21, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) clarified that a minor must be granted the right to a judicial remedy against a negative decision by the requested Member State. In Austria, the specific legal remedy in such cases remains unresolved to date. In particular, there is a lack of clarifying case law by the Federal Administrative Court or the Supreme Administrative Court on this matter.[24]

The dependent persons and discretionary clauses

Dependent persons

During a Dublin procedure with Italy, the Federal Administrative Court emphasised that Articles 16 (Dependent persons) and 17 (Discretionary clauses) of the Dublin III Regulation determine separate requirements and cannot be reduced to the meaning of Article 8 ECHR. Italy agreed to the Austrian request to take charge of the asylum application only after Austria expressed strong objections due to the fact that Italy had already issued a Schengen visa. The concerned asylum applicant in question was from Chechen origin and aged over 60 years old. He also suffered from a serious illness and a disability which suggested that he relied on support from his son who is legally residing in Austria. The Administrative Court found the decision unlawful and reverted the case back to the first instance authority because Article 16(1) of the Regulation had not been sufficiently considered by that authority. The Court noted, in addition, that Article 17(2) could also be relevant in this case because, due to the Chechen culture, the support of the son for his old parents is more likely to be accepted than foreign support.[25]

This argumentation can be found in another decision of the Court in the case of a single Afghan mother who applied for asylum with a small child and a new-born baby. She had been raped and was suicidal. The judgment held that the authorities should examine which female relatives, living in Austria as recognised refugees, could support her by taking care of the children. Furthermore, the help of females of a family among themselves could be preferred to foreign support based on the applicant’s cultural background.[26] The same argumentation led to the withdrawal of a Dublin decision regarding an Egyptian asylum applicant whose sister required support for her five under-age children after the death of her husband.[27]

A further Dublin decision was regarded as unlawful because a Chechen asylum applicant attempted suicide for the second time after enactment of the notice of transfer to Poland. Therefore, her demand for care and the willingness of her sister, who is living in Austria with refugee status, to take care of her should be examined. Due to the recommendation by a specialist to refrain from a transfer to Poland, it would also be a possibility to make use of the sovereignty clause.[28]

In another case, the BVwG referred to the wording of Art.16(1) of the Dublin III regulation on dependent persons to conclude that this provision also applied to cases in which the asylum applicant provides support to a family member (in the present case, an older brother providing support to his minor sister with special needs). In addition, the Court noted that no investigation on the special needs of the minor was undertaken by the BFA and considered that the responsibility of Italy would breach the ECHR given the particular circumstances of the case.[29] 

Humanitarian clause

Austrian authorities make reference to this clause mostly in cases where the asylum applicant is still in another country and applies for reunification with relatives in Austria.

Sovereignty clause

As of December 2024, article 17 Dublin-VO III was applied in 13 cases (2023: 31).[30]

In principle, an asylum applicant has the legal right to request the asylum authorities to implement the sovereignty clause, although this is not specifically laid down in law. The Constitutional Court has ruled, relying on case law from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), that even in case of responsibility of another Member State under the Dublin Regulation, the Austrian authorities are nevertheless bound by the ECHR.[31] This means that, in case of a risk of a human rights violation, Austria has a duty to use the sovereignty clause. This decision is applicable according to Articles 2 and 3 ECHR as well as Article 8 ECHR following an interpretation consistent with the constitution.

However, the assessment of a risk of a human rights violation allowing the use of the sovereignty clause needs be conducted in a manner that does not unreasonably delay the examination of the asylum application. The principle that admissibility procedures should not last too long was reflected in a decision of the Administrative Court. A Chechen family had applied for asylum in Poland, Austria and Switzerland by submitting consecutive applications since 2005. One family member was severely traumatised. Switzerland decided on the merits of the case and issued a deportation order before they re-entered Austria. The Court reverted the procedure back to the BFA. The Court found that it would have been necessary to ask for the details of the procedure in Switzerland to prevent indirect violations of Article 3 ECHR through chain deportation. For one family member, the risk of suicide was obvious according to expert statements. The Court, referring to the judgment of the CJEU in the case of NS & ME,[32] held that the long duration of the admissibility procedure has to be taken into consideration when determining the Member State responsible for examining the asylum application and that applying a return procedure in such cases might be more effective.[33]

The sovereignty clause has to be applied in the case of vulnerable asylum applicants to prevent violations of Article 3 ECHR (Article 4 EU Charter). In the case of a refugee from Syria who arrived in Italy in 2013, where he was fingerprinted, but immediately continued to Austria, the Administrative Court agreed that the situation in his country of origin as well as his personal state of stress and uncertainty regarding the situation of his wife and three small children led to an exceptional psychological state with the consequence of several stays in hospital.[34]

In a ruling of January 2017 concerning the transfer of a family including two children to Croatia, the BVwG found that it was irrelevant that the adult brother was not legally responsible for the custody of his minor siblings. As the separation of the adult brother from his minor siblings would constitute an unacceptable interference with the right to family life and the children’s well-being, the application of the sovereignty clause was ordered.[35]

In December 2017, the BFA successfully appealed a decision of the BVwG concerning an unaccompanied child who had been allowed to remain in Austria under the sovereignty clause, while his younger brother was in Bulgaria. The VwGH ruled that the use of the sovereignty clause to prevent a violation of Article 8 ECHR presupposes a correct determination of Austria’s responsibility. The Court found that, if the close relationship between the two brothers would result in Austria not being responsible for the application of the elder brother, then the reference to the sovereignty clause by the BVwG to prevent an Article 8 ECHR violation lacked legal basis.[36]

In another case, the BFA appealed to the VwGH against a decision to transfer a Chechen family to Poland, where the father had already applied and passed the admissibility procedure in Austria. The VwGH found that the applications of the spouse and children should be admitted and the sovereignty clause used in order to preserve family unity.[37]

In several cases, the BVwG has argued that the sovereignty clause may only be applied where a third-country national has lodged an asylum application.

In 2018, Austria made use of the sovereignty clause and accepted to be responsible for the asylum application of a Georgian national, for whom the Czech Republic was initially responsible as she had obtained a visa there. Given that she was the legal guardian of her husband who has special needs and who has obtained the subsidiary protection in Austria, the Court concluded that the asylum applicant should not be separated from her husband and referred to Article 16 of the Dublin regulation on dependent persons as well as to Article 8 ECHR on the right to a private and family life.[38]

Another case in which Austria made use of the sovereignty clause in 2018 concerned a Russian asylum applicant and her two children, who were traveling from Moscow to Vienna. Given that she suffered from different serious illnesses (sclerosis and PTSD), that one of her underage children was mentally ill and that she had relatives in Austria, the BVwG considered that she should stay in Austria and benefit from their support, instead of going to Italy where no one could provide her adequate assistance.[39] In its reasoning, the Court paid particular attention to the child’s best interest (e.g. having adequate support in Austria and the presence of family members).

Moreover, the Constitutional Court held in 2018 that single parents with minor children are considered by Article 21 of the recast Reception Conditions Directive as vulnerable persons.[40] The case concerned an Afghan national and the refusal of the Federal Administrative Court to make use of the sovereignty clause. The latter had refused to recognise the existence of a marriage between the Afghan asylum applicant and her Afghan husband who had obtained the subsidiary protection in Austria, as they were married only under the shariah law in Pakistan. Although their child was born in Austria, the BvWG did not address the vulnerability of the single mother nor the one of the new-born child, despite the situation in Bulgaria as assessed in the AIDA report on Bulgaria (to which the BVwG had made reference).

In September 2022, the Constitutional Court ruled against a decision by BVwG in which the second instance found a planned transfer of a Syrian national to Malta to be admissible. The Syrian national claimed that he would be put in detention upon return to Malta and the conditions in detention in Malta would violate his rights guaranteed by Art 2, 3 ECHR. The BVwG did not assess the situation in detention in Malta and ignored the deterioration following the Covid-19 situation in Malta.[41]

Procedure

Austria has not passed any national legislation to incorporate the Dublin III Regulation, as it is directly applicable, but refers to it in Article 5 AsylG. This provision, together with Article 2(1)(8) BFA-VG, states that the authorities issue an inadmissibility decision when Austria is not responsible for conducting the asylum procedure based on the Dublin III Regulation.[42] In the same decision, the authorities have to declare which Member State is responsible for the examination of the asylum application on its merits.

The law also states that there should also be an inadmissibility decision in case another Member State is responsible for identifying which Member State is responsible for the examination of the asylum application on its merits, that is in cases where the applicant is no longer on Austrian territory.[43]

There are three initial reception centres (EAST) which are responsible for the admissibility procedure: one is located in Traiskirchen near Vienna, one is in Thalham in Upper Austria and one is at the Airport Vienna Schwechat. These centres are specialised in conducting outgoing Dublin procedures.

A central Dublin department in Vienna is responsible for supervising the work of the initial reception centres. Moreover, it conducts all Dublin procedures with regard to incoming Dublin requests (requests to Austria to take back or take charge an asylum applicant by another Member State) and, in response to a request of the Aliens Police department, all consultations with Member States concerning foreigners who have not applied for asylum.

Once an application for asylum is lodged, a preliminary interview by the police (Erstbefragung) takes place on the circumstances of entering Austria and the first country of entry in the EU, the personal data and – in a very brief manner – also on the reasons why an applicant left their home country. The applicant receives a copy of the report and is further fingerprinted and photographed. Fingerprints are taken from all asylum applicants older than 14 years of age. No problems have been reported with regard to the taking of fingerprints. In case an applicant refuses to be fingerprinted, the appeal against a negative decision may not benefit from suspensive effect,[44] but this is not relevant to the Dublin procedure. Due to the increase in applications in summer 2022, non-vulnerable applicants without EURODAC hits were not questioned right at the border but sent to another police directorate in different parts of Austria. The aim was to distribute the work of the police in the province close to Hungary, Burgenland, to other provinces. After the first months of 2023, the police returned to the normal procedure as the number of applications decreased significantly.

Legal aid groups reported that most of the applicants accommodated in the remote camp in Fieberbrunn are people in Dublin proceedings. Following a ruling by the Administrative Court in 2021, the transfer of the group of people mainly intended for accommodation in Fieberbrunn (people who are in Austria illegally and cannot be deported for objective reasons) was mostly stopped.[45] Since then, the facility, which is operated by BBU, has apparently mainly been occupied by people who are undergoing Dublin proceedings.

Since September 2018, the Aliens Police Department and the BFA are authorised to examine the data storage of persons applying for international protection. However, this interference with the right to privacy is only permitted if the identity or travel route cannot be established on the basis of available evidence. Until the end of 2022, phones and/or other devices containing data of applicants could not be examined by Austrian authorities due to the lack of necessary data protection measures and missing technical equipment.[46] As of September 2023, 16 data storage devices were seized and searched by the BFA .[47]

The asylum applicant receives a green “procedure card” after the public security officer has consulted the BFA about the further steps to be taken in the asylum procedure: admittance to the regular procedure or admissibility procedure. Asylum applicants are transferred or asked to go to the initial reception centres when a Dublin procedure is initiated. The green card permits the asylum applicant to stay in the district of the initial reception centre. Cards for asylum applicants – as well as those granted to beneficiaries of protection – should be designed in such a way that they are counterfeit-proof and have a contactless readable data option.

In every procedure, the BFA has to consider within the admissibility procedure whether an asylum applicant could find protection in a safe third country or another EU Member State or Schengen Associated State.

The VwGH has determined that the deadline for an outgoing request starts running from the registration of the application, i.e. the moment the BFA receives the report of the Erstbefragung, in line with the CJEU ruling in Mengesteab.[48] The case before the VwGH concerned delays in the Erstbefragung, as the asylum applicant had applied for asylum in November 2015 but the preliminary interview only took place in January 2016 and the request was issued in March 2016.

Every asylum applicant receives written information, usually through the form of leaflets, about the first steps in the asylum procedure, basic care, medical care and the Eurodac and Dublin III Regulation at the beginning of the procedure in the initial reception centres. No particular issue in the provision of information have been reported, although it is recommended that providing information orally on top of written information would help asylum applicants to understand the asylum system.

Within 20 calendar days after the application, the BFA has to either admit the asylum applicant to the in-merit procedure or inform the applicant formally – through procedural order – about the intention to issue an inadmissibility decision on the ground that another state is considered responsible for the examination of the asylum claim.[49] The same applies to so called fast-track in-merits procedures. After the requested Member State accepts responsibility, the asylum applicant is given the possibility to be heard. No – government provided – legal advisors are present in this stage of the procedure.

Individualised guarantees

Individualised guarantees were still not requested systematically as of 2024. Their content depends on the individual circumstances of each case according to the BFA. Already in 2017 it was demonstrated that individual guarantees are not requested for vulnerable persons, even where these are requested by legal advisers during the Dublin interview or the appeal before the BVwG. The authorities seem to deem it sufficient to request information from ACCORD or the State Documentation database, in specific cases e.g. access to medical treatment for cancer patients in Italy, and to base their decision thereon.

In February 2025, the Constitutional Court dismissed an appeal at the regarding the Dublin transfer of an applicant to Greece, for which the Greek authorities had issued an individualised guarantee. However, in practice, the guarantee did not contain any individualised elements:

We would like to inform you that the above-mentioned third-country national will be accommodated in a reception centre in accordance with the Reception Directive (2013/33/EU). You will be informed of the details as soon as you inform us of the transfer date. On arrival, the person concerned will be informed by the competent airport police, with the assistance of an interpreter, about the access to the asylum procedure in accordance with the Asylum Procedures Directive (2013/32/EU).[50]

The sharing of information amongst Member State on the vulnerability and individual guarantees of asylum applicants is still not ensured. In the case of an Iraqi woman in a wheelchair, the BFA obtained a medical report confirming the availability of the necessary medical treatment in Italy. However, Italy had not been informed of the vulnerability in the first round of proceedings, which is why the BVwG granted the appeal and referred the case back to the BFA. The BVwG also rejected the rejection of the BFA in the second stage and stated that Austria was responsible for providing care to avoid a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR under the discretionary clause of Article 17 (1) of the Dublin III Regulation.[51]

Transfers

Transfers are normally carried out without the asylum applicant concerned being informed of the time and the location they are transferred to before the departure from Austria, giving them no possibility to return to the responsible Member State voluntarily.[52] There continue to be reports of the BFA informing receiving countries of a Dublin transfer on very short notice, in some cases no more than a week, even for asylum applicants requiring special care.[53] This raises questions with regard to Recital 24 and Article 26(2) Dublin III Regulation according to which a transfer decision must contain the details of the time carrying out the transfer and “if necessary, contain information on the place and date at which the applicant should appear, if he is travelling to the Member State responsible by their own means.”

In case of an enforced transfer to another EU Member State, the police first apprehend the asylum applicant and transfers them to a detention centre (see Detention of Asylum Applicants).[54] There is also a special detention centre for families in Vienna. The asylum applicant has to stay there until the deportation takes place, usually after one or two days. Under the Dublin procedure, asylum applicants can be held for up to 48 hours without detention being specifically ordered. As a less coercive measure, asylum applicants may be ordered to stay at a certain place (such as a flat or a reception centre).[55] Depending on the responsible state and the number of persons being transferred, the transfer takes place by plane, by bus or by police car under escort.

Regarding detention, the Administrative High Court has stated that the time limit for transfer, which is of 6 weeks, does not start running before the suspensive effect ceases. Furthermore, the period begins running only after the one-week period of the BVwG to award the suspensive effect of the complaint has expired.[56]

No figures on the average duration of the procedure are available. However, the minimum period for a decision to be issued, an appeal to be filed and suspensive effect to be decided upon would be six weeks.

In 2024, 1,184 Dublin outgoing transfers were conducted.[57] 1,511 Dublin incoming transfers were completed in the same time period.

Personal interview

After the initial registration process and interview by the police is concluded, another interview conducted by the BFA has to be conducted during admission phase.[58] The law allows for an exception in case the asylum applicant has absconded from the procedure in the initial reception centre (EAST).[59] If the facts are established, and a decision can be taken, the fact that the asylum applicant has not been interviewed yet by BFA or by the BVwG shall not preclude the taking of a decision. In practice this exception is not applied very often.[60] Such relevant facts for a decision in Dublin cases could be a Eurodac hit and the acceptance of the requested Member State to take back the asylum applicant.

The reform of June 2019 establishing the BBU introduces a new threshold which grants the asylum applicant the right to free legal assistance by the Agency only if an appointment – during which the applicant exercises their right to be heard – is scheduled within 72 hours (3 days) after having been notified by the BFA of the intention to reject the asylum application. This means that, if the BFA grants the asylum applicant the right to be heard at a later stage (e.g. in 4 or 5 days), free legal assistance by the Agency will only be available if resources so allow.[61] In practice, the BBU GmbH is notified in some cases and asked to provide legal counselling. There is no official statistics on how many interviews are conducted within 72 hours, but in most cases, applicants do not have access to legal counselling in Dublin procedures. In practice, legal advisers are present when appointed. But they are often informed only shortly before the interview, which means that they lack time to study the file. In case of detention, legal advice to asylum applicants takes place immediately before the hearing in the detention centre.[62] The provision of § 29 (4) AsylG foresees that an interview may not be conducted by the BFA within the first 24 hours of the asylum application.

In Dublin procedures, the rules and practice are the same as in the Regular Procedure: Personal Interview.

The records of the Dublin consultation between Austria and the requested state(s) are made available to the asylum applicant and the legal adviser only after the procedural order of the intention to reject is given and Austria has received the answer from the requested Member State. Sometimes, the requested State has not received all relevant information. One of the judges of the Federal Administrative Court mentioned in a decision regarding a Chechen father whose son was legally residing in Austria that Italy, which had issued a visa for the couple from Chechnya, finally agreed to take charge but was not informed about the severe illness and the disability of the asylum applicant who relied on the care of his son.[63] The Court noted that the dependency clause should have been applied in this case. In another case which involved Bulgaria, Austria did not inform the authorities that the asylum-applicant had been in Serbia for more than 3 months, although there was enough evidence.[64]

Appeal

As Dublin cases are rejected as inadmissible, the relevant rules detailed in the section on Admissibility Procedure: Appeal apply.

The time limit within which the appeal against the BFA’s inadmissibility decisions (including Dublin decisions) must be lodged is 2 weeks. The appeal has no suspensive effect, unless the Federal Administrative Court (BVwG) grants suspensive effect within 7 calendar days after the appeal reaches the court.[65] The expulsion order may not be executed before the BVwG has decided if the appeal must be given suspensive effect.[66] In Dublin cases, suspensive effect is hardly granted. Sometimes asylum applicants never receive a final decision because they are transferred back to the responsible Member State before the Court’s decision.[67]

The VwGH dealt with the expiry of the transfer period in the context of an appeal that had a suspensive effect. In that case, the decision that gave the complaint a suspensive effect was taken by written procedure and was notified only after the expiry of the six-month transfer period, as laid down in Article 29 (1) of the Dublin III Regulation. The Court considered that granting a suspensive effect after the expiration of the transfer period is not possible and, as a result, the transfer period cannot be extended. Austria was therefore deemed responsible for the asylum application.[68]

The BVwG can either refuse the appeal, confirming the BFA decision, or decide to refer it back to the BFA with the instruction to conduct either an in-merit procedure or investigate the case in more detail (for instance if the Court finds that the BFA has not properly taken into account family ties or that the assessment of the situation in the responsible Member State was based on outdated material or was insufficient with regard to a possible violation of Article 3 ECHR). The documentation of decisions of the Court shows, that the Court decides on the basis of the written appeal and the asylum file without a personal hearing of the asylum applicant.[69]

In 2024, 1,043 Dublin decisions were appealed to the BVwG.[70]

Asylum applicants whose appeals were accepted by the Court have the right to re-enter Austria by showing the decision of the court at the border. If no suspensive effect was granted but the court finds that the decision of the BFA was unlawful, the asylum applicant is also allowed to re-enter.[71] In practice, it only happens in few cases that suspensive effect is granted after transfer/deportation. No cases were reported to asylkoordination in which re-entering the county was denied in such cases.

Legal assistance

Free legal assistance during the admissibility procedure was implemented to compensate for the restricted movement of asylum applicants during this type of procedure, as they are obliged to stay within the district of the initial reception centre (EAST). If asylum applicants leave the district of the EAST to consult an attorney-at-law or NGOs – which normally have their offices in bigger cities – they can be subject to a fine ranging from € 100 to € 1,000. In case of repeated violation of the restricted residence (Gebietsbeschränkung), the fine may reach € 5,000 and detention may even be ordered in case the asylum applicant is unable to pay the fine. A violation of the restriction of movement could furthermore be a reason for pre-removal detention. As of September 2023, in 45 cases a punishment of violation of restricted residence was applied by the authorities.[72] In 2024 only 8 people were ordered to reside in a specific location under § 57 FPG.[73]

The second reason why free legal assistance is provided at this stage of the procedure is the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal in admissibility procedures, which justifies the incorporation of additional safeguards in the first instance procedure.

As discussed in the section on Regular Procedure: Legal Assistance, the quality of the advice provided raises concerns due to a lack of time of legal advisers and a lack of trust of asylum applicants, as the advisers are considered being too closely linked to the BFA. They have their offices within the building of the BFA, they provide assistance for voluntary return and their task is only to provide objective information about the procedure to the asylum applicants; not to assist them in the procedure and defend their interests. The new system of legal counselling established by the state-owned BBU-GmbH in 2021 further strengthened this conflict of interests, as the Federal Agency responsible for providing legal assistance falls under the responsibility of the Ministry of Interior, which is also supervising the determining authority (BFA).

In case of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, the appointed legal adviser becomes their legal representative during the admissibility procedure.[74] There is no legal guardian appointed as the Child and Youth Welfare Authority denies its responsibility arguing that during the admissibility procedure it is not clear whether the children have a perspective to stay in Austria. UAM are not able to act without the consent of their legal adviser, for example to choose a legal representative by themselves or to submit an appeal in case the legal adviser fails to do so. After the admissibility procedure is concluded UAM are supposed to be transferred to the provinces where the authorities of Kinder- und Jugendhilfe take over legal guardianship (see Legal representation of unaccompanied minors).

Although Article 29(4) AsylG provides that free legal assistance shall be provided to all asylum applicants at least 24 hours before the hearing on the results of the evidentiary findings determining the responsible Member State under the Dublin Regulation, legal advisers receive the file only shortly before the interview, therefore lacking time to study the file and prepare for the hearing. Moreover, the reform of the new legal aid system through the BBU-G introduces a new threshold which grants the asylum applicant the right to free legal assistance by the Agency only if an appointment – during which the applicant exercises their right to be heard – is scheduled within 72 hours (3 days) after having been notified by the BFA of the intention to reject the asylum application. This means that, if the BFA grants the asylum applicant the right to be heard at a later stage (e.g. in 4 or 5 days), free legal assistance by the Agency will only be available if resources so allow. The discretion of the BFA as regards the timing of the appointment thus has an influence on whether legal assistance will be provided at first instance because the Federal Agency is legally obliged to do so, or whether it will be provided if the Agency’s available resources allow so. In addition, the provision specifies that, if the asylum applicant did not make use of the right to be heard, this does not affect the outcome of the decision on their application for international protection.[75] NGOs are thus extremely concerned about the arbitrary nature of the provision of legal assistance in such cases. The BBU GmbH reports that if an interview is conducted within 72 hours, they are notified to provide legal counselling. The agency however does not have an overview or information, to what share of Dublin procedures they are involved. The Ministry of Interior also does not provide statistics on the matter. Anecdotal evidence shows that only a small part of the Dublin interviews are conducted within 72 hours and consequently only few applicants confronted with a Dublin procedure have access to free legal counselling.

The legal adviser must be present at the interview held to give the asylum applicant an opportunity to be heard. At the interview in relation to Dublin with the BFA, the asylum applicant together with the legal adviser may submit written statements with regard to the situation in the Member State deemed responsible or make requests for additional investigations, but they are not allowed to ask questions; this is usually respected by the legal advisers.

Suspension of transfers

Under the Dublin III Regulation, all EU Member States are considered safe places where the asylum applicant may find protection from persecution. An exception applies to cases in which there is an obvious risk of lack of protection, e.g. if it is well-known to the authorities, or if the asylum applicant brings evidence that there is a risk that they will not be protected properly. This real risk cannot be based on mere speculations but has to be based on individual facts and evidence. This statement of risk must be related to the individual situation of the asylum applicant.[76]

Country reports from various sources such as AIDA, UNHCR, the US Department of State, Amnesty International, Eurostat, as well as information from ACCORD and Austrian liaison officers are taken into consideration.

According to the jurisprudence, notorious severe human rights violations in regard of Article 3 ECHR must be taken into consideration ex officio.[77] If the asylum application is already rejected by the Member State responsible for the examination of the application, a divergent interpretation of the Refugee Convention in a Member State or manifestly unlawful procedures could be relevant in an individual case. Generally low recognition rates in a certain Member State are not regarded as a characteristic of a dysfunctional asylum system.[78]

In 2024, 1,181 outgoing Dublin transfers were completed. The main recipient countries were Germany, Croatia and Bulgaria.

Current practice with regard to selected Dublin countries is illustrated below:

Greece: After the ruling of the ECtHR in M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece in 2011, Austria suspended transfers to Greece. The director of the BFA announced Dublin procedures with Greece would start again in March 2017,^[79] in line with the European Commission’s recommendation of December 2016, but they did not resume in practice up to and including in 2023. However, there were 10 take back requests sent to Greece in 2024.[80] Moreover, there were at least two cases before the BVwG in which the court rejected appeals against a Dublin transfer decisions to Greece.[81] In February 2025, the Constitutional Court also dismissed an appeal against a Dublin decision regarding Greece.[82] Without giving reasons, the court confirmed the assessment of the second instance (BVwG) that the circumstances for applicants in Greece are improving. In this particular case, the Greek authorities had issued an individualised guarantee. The court found that the decision of the BVwG did not violate the (human) rights guaranteed in the Austrian constitution. This is particularly surprising given the long-standing precedents of systemic problems in Greece and recent ECtHR rulings[83] especially in light of systemic pushbacks[84] and the danger of chain deportations. Furthermore, it is worrying that the Constitutional Court did not undertake a detailed analysis of the circumstances in Greece and the reasoning behind the second instance decision. It should be mentioned that the decision, which does not contain any (detailed) reasoning or assessment by the court, was published on the website of the Constitutional Court. This practice is highly unusual, as these types of decisions are normally not published at all. The Constitutional Court thus opened the door for possible Dublin transfers to Greece, although there is still no decision from the High Administrative Court on the matter. As this practice of issuing Dublin decisions ordering the transfer of an applicant to Greece is still evolving, the Austrian authorities sometimes immediately make use of the discretionary clause, but this is not general practice[85] despite the lack of transfers in over 10 years.  In practice, in recent years there have been no Dublin transfers to Greece due to legal reasons.[86] In 2024, according to Eurostat, 2 Dublin transfers took place from Austria to Greece.[87]

Hungary: In 2019 and 2020, one transfer was reportedly carried out respectively in individual cases. While it is clear that individual guarantees must have been secured for the purpose of this transfer, no further information is available on this case. In 2024 Austria submitted 34 (2023: 21) take charge and 3 take back requests to Hungary. Six transfers were completed.[88]

Italy: In 2024 397 take charge and 327 take back requests (2023: 1,050 total) were sent to Italy. In a letter from December 2022, Italy announced that due to technical reasons no Dublin returnees would be taken back from other countries. At the time of writing (June 2025), this has not changed and no Dublin returns were completed throughout 2024.[89] Decisions on transfers are still being made by the authorities but cannot be implemented.

In the past, the Italian Ministry of Interior had been issuing a number of letters guaranteeing that all families with minors transferred to Italy under the Dublin III Regulation would remain together and be accommodated in a facility adapted to their needs. Previous case law has also allowed for the transfer of families to Italy, including of a single mother and her baby;[90] and of a family with four children (out of which two were minors) and their grandparents.[91] The Constitutional Court also found that the situation of asylum applicants in Italy has improved and that special safeguards are no longer necessary.[92] There is no recent jurisdiction on Dublin returns to Italy by Austrian Courts: Requests are issued and the applicants are only admitted to the procedure when the 6 months have passed. Detentions are generally not upheld as there is no feasible perspective for returns to be resumed.[93]

Bulgaria: Transfers to Bulgaria are carried out by the BFA and generally upheld by the BVwG.[94] The VwGH in 2017 found that the BFA must make a thorough assessment of the conditions in Bulgaria before transferring families.[95] In March 2023, the Constitutional Court annulled two decisions of the BVwG in which the latter found a decision of the first instance determining a transfer to Bulgaria to be lawful. In one case the decision was found to have been taken in an arbitrary manner because the BVwG did not examine whether the person concerned would have an effective access to the asylum system without having to fear of a chain pushback to Türkiye.[96] As a reaction to the High Court’s judgements all appeals concerning Bulgaria were upheld. This changed with the update of the country information sheet provided to the authorities and courts by the Staatendokumentation. There it was stated that Bulgaria is no longer rejecting applications by arguing that Turkey is a safe third county. Following this, the Court’s decisions upheld most first instance decisions and confirmed the legality of Dublin returns to Bulgaria.[97] As of May 2024, Dublin transfers to Bulgaria are conducted and the appeals against negative decisions are dismissed in general.

In 2023, in a case of a single mother with her minor daughter the decision was annulled because the BVwG did not take into account that the persons concerned were members of a vulnerable group.[98] In 2024, in one case in which the applicant claimed to have suffered violence in Bulgaria because of his homosexuality, the appeal was sustained by the BVwG; the decision was annulled and sent back to the first instance for further investigations.[99]

Contrary to years prior, Bulgaria was not the top recipient of take back requests sent by Austria. In 2024, around 20% of all Austrian take back requests were sent to Croatia (1,016), followed by Bulgaria (936) and Germany (807).[100]

Croatia: Following the CJEU ruling in A.S. / Jafari in 2017, the BVwG rejected previously suspended cases and the persons concerned were returned to Croatia. In some cases, the applications were admitted in Austria due to the expiry of the time limit for the transfer. Since 2019, transfers to Croatia have been completed without Austria asking for individual guarantees. In a case of an accompanied child that needed medical treatment, the revision was rejected from the High Administrative Court, and an individual guarantee was not deemed to be necessary. Almost all BVwG decisions confirm the first instance decisions that find Croatia responsible.[101] In 2024 the Austria submitted 77 take charge requests and 939 take back requests to Croatia. 287 Dublin transfers were completed in 2024.[102] As far as can be seen in all cases, Croatia became responsible by not responding to the requests. Some persons transferred claimed that they have never been to Croatia before.

The situation of Dublin returnees

Asylum applicants returning to Austria under the Dublin Regulation, and whose claim is pending a final decision, do not face obstacles if their transfer takes place within two years after leaving Austria. In this case, the discontinued asylum procedure will be reopened as soon as they request for it at the BFA or the BVwG. If a final decision has already been taken on the asylum application upon return to Austria, the new asylum application will be processed as a subsequent asylum application. Dublin returnees are confronted with the same issues as other asylum applicants in accessing the basic care system. As provinces are reluctant to take over asylum applicants from the federal reception centres Dublin returnees might end up staying several weeks or even months in bigger first reception facilities.

So far (June 2025) the BFA has not been requested to provide guarantees to other Member States prior to transfers.

[1] BFA, BFA-Detailstatistik 2024, available in German here.

[2] Ministry of Interior, Answer to a parliamentary request 9529AB/XXVII. GP, 11 April 2022, available in German here.

[3] Ministerio dell‘ Interno, Circular letter to all Dublin units, 5 December 2022.

[4] Christian Filzwieser ‘Asyl und Fremdenrecht 2015 und erste Jahreshälfte 2016 – eine Einführung’ in Christian Filzwieser and Isabella Taucher (eds), Asyl und Fremdenrecht Jahrbuch 2016, (NWV 2016), 13.

[5] Ministry of Interior, Reply to parliamentary question 10654/J (XXV.GP), 2 January 2017.

[6] CJEU, Cases C-490/16, A.S. v Republic of Slovenia, 26 July 2017, available here and C-646/16, Khadija Jafari and Zainab Jafari, Judgment of 26 July 2017, available here.

[7] VwGH, Decision Ra 2016/19/0303, 20 September 2017, summary available in German here.

[8] VwGH, Decision Ra 2017/19 / 0169-9, 5 April 2018, available in German here.

[9] Greek Asylum Service, Dublin Statistics, January 2020, available here.

[10] VwGH, Decision Ra 2016/20/0384, 22 June 2017, summary available in German here.

[11] BVwG, W175 2206076-1, 1 October 2018, available in German here.

[12] Letter from the Ombudsman to Asylkoordination Österreich, Fr. Dr. Glawischnig, 12 June 2018.

[13] Practice-based observation by asylkoordination österreich and partners, January 2024.

[14] Standard, ‘Viele Unklarheiten um Asyl-Kommission von Irmgard Griss”, 5 February 2021, available in German here.

[15] Federal Ministry of Justice, Bericht der Kindeswohlkommission, 21 July 2021, available in German here.

[16] Bündnis Gemeinsam für Kinderrechte (GfK), here.

[17] It is not possible for the BFA to impose a DNA test. The authorities have to enable such testing, according to Article 13(4) BFA-VG.

[18] Fremdenrechtsänderungsgesetz 2017 – FrÄG 2017, 18 October 2017, available here.

[19] VwGH Decision, 15 December 2022, Ra 2022/18/0182, available in German here.

[20] CJEU, Case C‑648/11, M.A. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Judgment of 6 June 2013, available here.

[21] VwGH, Decision Ra 2017/19/0081, 22 November 2017, available in German here.

[22] VwGH, Decision Ra 2016/18/0366, 06 November 2018, available in German here.

[23] VwGH, Decision Ra 2017/18/0433, 20 May 2018, available in German here.

[24] See, for the previous legal situation, BVwG 01.10.2018, W175 2206076-1 and the case law of the Supreme Administrative Court cited therein; see also the established legal practice in Germany: Guide to Dublin Family Reunification by Diakonie Deutschland, Equal Rights Beyond Borders and Informationsverbund Asyl & Migration, updated version published on 14 March 2023, available in German here.

[25] BVwG, Decision W149 2009627-1, 21 July 2014, available in German here.

[26] BVwG, Decision W149 2009673-1, 20 June 2014, available in German here.

[27] BVwG, Decision W149 2001851-1, 3 July 2014, available in German here.

[28] BVwG, Decision W185 2005878-1, 2 July 2014, available in German here.

[29] BVwG Decision W233 2177425-2, 23 January 2018, available in German here.

[30] BFA, BFA-Detailstatistik 2024, available in German here.

[31] VfGH, Decision 237/03, 15 October 2004, VfSlg. 16.122/2001, available in German here.

[32] CJEU, Joined Cases C-411/10, NS v Secretary of State for the Home Department and C-493/10 ME v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Judgment of 21 December 2011, available here para 98.

[33] BVwG, Decision W125.1257809-8, 20 January 2014, available here.

[34] BVwG, Decision W205 1438717-1, 29 April 2014, available here.

[35] BVwG, Decision W165 2140213-1, 26 January 2017, available here.

[36] VwGH, Decision Ra 2017/01/0068, 5 December 2017, available here.

[37] VwGH, Decision Ra 2015/18/0192 to 0195, 15 December 2015, available here.

[38] VwGH, Decision W239 2152802-1, 30 July 2018; available in German here.

[39] BVwG, Decision W185 2188585-1,13 November 2018, available in German here.

[40] VfGH, Decision E2418/2017, 11 June 2018, available in German here.

[41] VfGH, Decision E622/2022, 20 September 2022, available in German here.

[42] Article 2(1)(8) BFA-VG.

[43] Article 5(2) AsylG.

[44] Article 18 BFA-VG.

[45] VwGH 17.05.2021, Ra 2020/21/0406, available in German here.

[46] Ministry of Interior, Answer to parliamentary request 3614AB/XXVI. GP, 23 July 2019, available in German here.

[47] Ministry of Interior, Answer to parliamentary request15847/AB, 21 November 2023, available in German here.

[48] VwGH, Decision Ra 2016/01/0274, 17 October 2017, available in German here citing CJEU, Case C-670/16 Mengesteab, Judgment of 26 July 2017, available here.

[49] Article 28 Asylum law has been amended. Since September 2018 the time limit for in-merits procedures may be lifted to enable more decisions during the admissibility procedure.

[50] BVwG. Decision W161 2299884-1, 21 November 2024, availabe in German here; translation by the author;

[51] BVwG, Decision W241 2157798-2, 31 January 2018, available in German here.

[52] Reports by NGOs during an exchange meeting at asylkoordination österreich, January 2024.

[53] ECRE, Balkan Route Reversed: The return of asylum applicants to Croatia under the Dublin system, December 2016, available here, 33.

[54] In some cases, asylum applicants have reportedly been apprehended by the police during the night: Ibid.

[55] Article 77(5) FPG.

[56] VwGH, Decision Ro 2017/21/0010, 26 April 2018, available in German here.

[57] Ministry of Interior, BFA-Detailstatistik 2024, available in German here.

[58] Article 19 (2) AsylG.

[59] Article 24(3) AsylG.

[60] See Asylum Court, S6 430.113-1/2012, 5 November 2012: the Court found that the procedure was unlawful in the case of an unaccompanied minor asylum applicant from Afghanistan, who was interrogated by the police without the presence of his legal representative or a person of trust and disappeared shortly after. The Federal Agency for Aliens’ Affairs and Asylum did not submit the minutes of the first interrogation or give the legal representative the opportunity to be heard before rendering the rejection of the application. However, ct. the negative decision of the Asylum Court in the case of an unaccompanied minor: S2 429505-1/2012, 04 October 2012.

[61] ECRE, Reforming legal assistance in Austria: an end to independent provision?, July 2019, available here, 3.

[62] Practice based observation by partner organisations of asylkoordination, December 2023.

[63] BVwG, Decision W149 2009627-1, 21 July 2014, available in German here.

[64] BVwG, Decision W239 2106763-3, 12 October 2018, available in German here.

[65] Art 16 (1) BFA-VG.

[66] Art 16 (4) BFA-VG.

[67] Reports from NGOs to asylkoordination österreich, September 2023.

[68] VwGH, Decision Ra 2018/14/0133, 24 October 2018, available in German here.

[69] Rechtsinformationssystem des Bundes, ris.bka.gv.at.

[70] Ministry of Justice, Answer to parliamentary request 634/AB XXVIII. GP, 19 May 2025, available in German here.

[71] Article 14 AsylG.

[72] Ministry of Interior, Answer to parliamentary request 15846/AB XXVII. GP, 21 November 2023, available in German here.

[73] Ministry of Interior, Answer to parliamentary request 636/AB XXVIII. GP, 19 May 2025, available in German here.

[74] Art 49 (3) BFA-VG.

[75] ECRE, Reforming legal assistance in Austria: an end to independent provision?, July 2019, available here.

[76] Article 5 AsylG.

[77] VwGH, 2008/19/0163, 21 June 2010, available in German here.

[78] e.g. BVwG, W144 2287262, 28 February 2024, available iN German here.

[79] See Kurier, ‘Griechenland soll ab März wieder Flüchtlinge zurücknehmen’, 20 January 2017, available in German here.

[80] BFA, BFA-Detailstatistik 2024, January 2025, available in German here.

[81] BVwG, Decision W144 2299891-1, 07 October 2024, available in German here; and W161 2299884-1, 21 November 2024, in German available here.

[82] VfGH, Decision E 4746/2024, 27 February 2025, available in German here.

[83] Summary of relevant decisions by the ECJ and the ECtHR regarding Greece can be found here.

[84] ECtHR, 07 January 2025, G.R.J. v. Greece and A.R.E. v. Greece, Applications15067/21 and 15783/21, available here and here.

[85] Practice based observation by asylkoordination österreich and partners, January 2024.

[86] Ministry of Interior, Answer to a parliamentary request 15846/AB, XXVII GP, 21 November 2023, available in German here.

[87] Eurostat, ‘Outgoing ‘Dublin’ transfers by receiving country (PARTNER), legal provision, duration of transfer, sex and type of applicant’, last updated 16 April 2025, available here.

[88] Ministry of Interior, Answer to parliamentary request 635/AB XXVIII. GP, 19 May 2025, available in German here.

[89] Ministry of Interior, Answer to parliamentary request 635/AB XXVIII. GP, 19 May 2025, available in German here.

[90] VWGH, Decision Ra 2016/20/0051, 23 June 2016.

[91] VwGH Decisions Ra 2017/20/0061 to 0067, 23 March 2017, available in German here.

[92] VfGH, Decision E2646/2016, 7 March 2017, available in German here.

[93] Practice-based observation by asylkoordination österreich and partners, January 2024.

[94] See e.g. BVwG, Decision W239 2217177-1, 26 April 2019, available in German here; W165 2174429-1, available in German here, 23 November 2017; W241 2178020-1, 7 December 2017, available in German here.

[95] VwGH, Decision Ra 2017/18/0039, 30 August 2017; Ra 2017/19/0100, 13 December 2017, available in German here.

[96] VfGH, Decision E 2944/2022, 15 March 2023, available in German here.

[97] Staatendokumentation, LIB Bulgaria, 17 Mai 2023 and 29 September 2023, not publicly available; e.g. W144 2273612-2/4E, 06 July 2023 or W239 2273159-2/6E, 21 September 2023.

[98] VfGH, Decision E 1044/2022, 9 March 2023, available in German here.

[99] BVwG, W239 2286457-1/4E, 22 February 2024, available in German here.

[100] BFA, BFA-Detailstatistik 2024, January 2025, available in German here.

[101] VwGH, Decision Ra 2023/01/0305-6, 12 December 2023.

[102] Ministry of Interior, Answer to parliamentary request 635/AB XXVIII. GP, 19 May 2025, available in German here.