United Kingdom

Country Report: Dublin Last updated: 30/11/20


Refugee Council Visit Website






Dublin statistics: 2019

Outgoing procedure

Incoming procedure































Source: Home Office, available at: https://bit.ly/39sFbWD.


In February 2018, the government published up-to-date Dublin statistics for the first time, having previously referred enquirers to Eurostat figures, even as recently as in responses to parliamentary questions in January 2018.[1]. These statistics are produced annually.


The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that the UK’s notification of intention to leave the EU does not entail an obligation on other Member States to make use of the sovereignty clause or to take into consideration the best interests of the child and to examine asylum applications themselves.[2] There has been much discussion about the future of the family unity clauses in the Dublin Regulation once the UK leaves the EU; the Withdrawal Act of 2019 compelled the UK government to negotiate a ‘replacement mechanism’. Legislation in the UK Parliament in early 2020 revoke this, replacing it with a requirement for the UK government to make a statement in this regard by 22 March 2020. 


Application of the Dublin criteria


The UK issued outgoing 5,510 requests and received 1,940 on the following grounds in 2019:

Outgoing and incoming Dublin requests by criterion: 2019

Dublin III Regulation criterion



Family provisions: Articles 8-11



Regular entry: Articles 12 and 14



Irregular entry: Article 13



Dependent persons: Article 16



Humanitarian clause: Article 17(2)



“Take back”: Articles 18 and 20(5)



Total outgoing and incoming requests



Source: Home Office.


The Home Office finally issued guidance in November 2017 on the operation of the Dublin III Regulation,[3] following a consultation period with key stakeholders in September 2016. It has subsequently been amended, in particular to reflect changes in approach to DNA evidence.


The majority of requests to third countries are based on Eurodac hits, as these are objective and easy to identify for the authorities. The perception of lawyers is that the Home Office is reluctant to apply other criteria (such as family reunion), however this observation should be balanced with the fact that legal representatives generally see cases where there is a problem. The media also reported that staff are incentivised to make decisions resulting in transfer out of the UK and that poor practice is rife. These claims were denied by the Home Office.[4] Positive Home Office decisions to take charge of a case are made internally and also occur, including where the applicant has passed through a safe country, and where they have family in the UK. 


While it is easy to identify a Eurodac hit at the very early stage of a case (fingerprint match), it is not so easy for the authorities to identify whether family members are present in any Dublin country, and therefore reliance must be placed on the applicant's account. In the experience of lawyers, the authorities are happy to submit a request to a third country to take charge of the claim if the applicant indicates that he or she has family members there. This can happen at any point unless the asylum process has already started, and/or the time limits provided by the Dublin III Regulation have lapsed.


If the applicant wishes to be transferred out of the UK, a referral is made to the Third Country Unit (TCU) and the Home Office will not normally object. However, if the applicant wishes to have his or her claim substantively considered in the UK, it is the obligation of the applicant or their legal representative to submit documentary evidence such as status papers, passports, asylum interview records etc. of family members, as well as representations explaining why the UK should consider the claim. 


The family criteria


The Upper Tribunal detailed in the case of MS the state’s duty to “act reasonably” and to take “reasonable steps” in discharging the duty to investigate the basis of a “take charge” request sent by another country. This includes the option of DNA testing in the sending country or, if not, in the UK.[5]


DNA tests are not routinely carried out. This would only be necessary if there is no other way to prove relationship. If the applicant fails to declare he or she has family members in the UK at an early stage, normally the Home Office attempt to proceed with removal. However, a judicial review challenge can be brought if there is a good reason for the lack of disclosure; for example the applicant only found out later the whereabouts of his family. 


With regard to Article 9, the Upper Tribunal clarified in April 2018 that a family member acquiring citizenship in the UK after having received international protection remains a “family member who is a beneficiary of international protection” for the purposes of the Dublin III Regulation.[6]


The family criteria for unaccompanied minors


During 2016 concerted efforts were made in the UK by lawyers and activists to encourage the government to use the family unity clauses, with particular focus on unaccompanied children in Northern France who have family members in the UK. The particular problems and delays for unaccompanied children trying to enter the asylum system in France on order to have their claim transferred to the UK were highlighted in a case in the Upper Tribunal in January 2016.[7] Whilst this case was later overturned by the Court of Appeal,[8] it resulted in the government making more of a concerted effort to process ‘take charge’ requests relating to this cohort of children more promptly. Several statements were made by the Home Secretary to this effect.[9] Immediately prior to the clearance of the Calais camp in October 2016, the process was expedited on a temporary basis.[10] The Sandhurst Treaty of 2018 committed the UK and French governments to specific timescales relating to the consideration of Dublin requests from France: 25 days for children and 30 days for adults.[11] This treaty remains in place.


As stated above, any future arrangements, once the UK has left the EU, have not yet been negotiated.


In November 2017 the government published statistics relating to the children transferred to the UK when the Calais camp was cleared. The one-off publication gives a breakdown by reason for transfer, gender and child’s country of origin.[12] In 2017, 151 requests were made to transfer unaccompanied children to the UK under Article 8(1), of which 94 resulted in the child’s arrival into the UK. 165 requests were made and 81 children brought to the UK under Article 8(2) of the Regulation. Most of the media focus on Dublin has related solely to the issue of unaccompanied children.


Campaigning organisations published research reports focusing on the delays regarding the reunification of children elsewhere in Europe with family members or relatives in the UK. In autumn 2019 it was estimated by a group of organisations working in northern France that there were 300 unaccompanied children in Calais, at least 40 of whom claimed to have a sibling or uncle in the UK who they wished to join under the Dublin Regulation.[13]  A report published following research in Greece by Safe Passage and Praksis identified the UK amongst those member states needing to improve their systems to reunite unaccompanied children with family or relatives.[14]


The discretionary clauses


Lawyers say that the UK rarely applies the discretionary clauses of the Dublin III Regulation, and that the only exception which the UK regularly makes to the issuing of a certificate in Dublin cases is where the applicant has a spouse, parents or children who are refugees in the UK.[15] Details of family members are routinely requested during the screening interview, but the applicant is not advised of the possibility of asking for the humanitarian or sovereignty clauses to be invoked. In practice such grounds are more likely to be raised as a challenge to the Dublin decision once it is made.


In a case in the Upper Tribunal known as RSM, an application had been made for the UK to use its powers under Article 17 to expedite the transfer of a boy from Italy, where he had no family (the only family having been lost at sea crossing the Mediterranean) to the care of a relative. The UK had refused to use these powers, arguing that they were only permitted so to do if there was no eligibility under Article 8 (of the same regulation). The court held that the UK government did have the power to use its discretion and that in this case the boy’s best interests determined that he should be transferred without waiting for the process under Article 8.[16]


In 2018, the Upper Tribunal held in SM that, in the case of a “particularly vulnerable person”, failure to consider whether to apply the “sovereignty clause” is likely to render the transfer decision unlawful.[17]


As regards the processing of requests under Article 17(2), the Upper Tribunal held in HA that there is a wide discretion available to the country receiving a “humanitarian clause” request under Article 17(2), but it is not untrammelled. It was therefore for the Home Office to take into account Article 7 of the EU Charter / Article 8 ECHR and the best interests of the child when assessing whether a “humanitarian clause” request should be accepted.[18]


Statistics show that in 2019, 283 requests were made for the UK to take in an applicant under the humanitarian clause, while 59 people were transferred under this article in the same period. No requests were made by the UK under that clause.




UK legislation provides for different lists of ‘safe third countries’ to which an asylum seeker can be returned without their asylum claim being considered in the UK. They are called ‘third’ countries because they are not the UK and not the country of origin.


The First List is set out in the statute and consists of EU member states (except Croatia), Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. There is no reference to the Dublin III Regulation, but the legislation states that the listed countries are to be treated as places in which a person will not be at risk of persecution contrary to the Refugee Convention, and from which they will not be sent in breach of the Refugee Convention or European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).[19] In relation to a person who can be removed to one of these countries, the Dublin Regulation is applied.


Whether the person can be removed to one of these countries is determined in the first instance by whether they can be shown to have travelled through that country. Fingerprinting is a routine part of the screening process, carried out in all cases, and fingerprints are sent to the Immigration Fingerprint Bureau (IFB) which automatically runs a fingerprint check on the Eurodac database.[20]


Where a person refuses to have their fingerprints taken, the Home Office can treat this as a failure to provide information relevant to their case. This can then be treated as relevant to a decision that the person has not made out their asylum claim. However, the asylum seeker must be given an opportunity to provide a reasonable explanation, and failure to provide fingerprints would not be used alone.[21] It can also contribute to a decision to detain.[22]


Where a person’s fingers are damaged so that they are unable to provide good quality fingerprints, policy says that their fingerprints should still be taken.[23] During the period of healing the person should be fingerprinted weekly. If they are in detention and after two months, ‘the applicant’s fingers have not recovered… nor has the applicant sought medical intervention for the trauma, they will be asked to sign a consent form to attend the removal centre medical facility and be referred to a consultant dermatologist’.[24]


Enquiries as to the route of travel are also a routine part of the screening process in all cases. Together with the results of a Eurodac search, the asylum seeker's account of their route of travel will determine whether the application is referred to the Third Country Unit.


In practice a Dublin decision (i.e. a decision that the Dublin Regulation applies) normally entails a decision that the asylum claim will not be considered in the UK.


On the Second List, see the section on Admissibility Procedure.


Individualised guarantees


The UK does not formally recognise any requirement to request individual guarantees of adequate reception facilities. The judgment of the High Court in MS [2015] EWHC 1095 (Admin),[25] referring to the ECtHR case of Tarakhel, maintains that there is no such general requirement where children are not involved, even where applicants have experienced trauma and have mental health difficulties. This does not mean that guarantees are never sought in individual cases, since officers in UKVI may do so, but it means that the UK does not seek guarantees as a matter of routine practice or policy.


The Court of Appeal judgment on the case, now referred to as NA (Sudan),[26] broadly maintained this position. It decided that Tarakhel did not extend to other vulnerable persons and was only ever intended to apply to families with children. And the two appellants in NA (Sudan) were extremely vulnerable, suffering a range of health problems including severe depressive disorder, and the risk of suicide, with one appellant suffering a history of rape and sexual abuse in Italy.


In coming to this conclusion, the Court relied on the decision of several cases decided since Tarakhel involving individuals suffering from serious PTSD, health problems, and the risk of suicide. In some, children were involved, and it decided that general, rather than specific, assurances were sufficient, representing a further rollback of Tarakhel.


In line with the Supreme Court’s ruling in EM (Eritrea),[27] the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the fundamental question as being whether, in assessing all the circumstances of an individual’s case, substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned faces a real risk of being subjected to treatment meeting the Article 3 threshold. But the starting point is always going to be the presumption, labelled as a ‘significant evidential presumption’ by the Court, that Member States will comply with their obligations.[28] The Court decided in the case of Italy that the presumption was not rebutted, taking the opportunity to remind us all that: ‘the situation in Italy is in no way comparable to that in Greece and that a general ban on returns to Italy cannot be justified’.[29]


UK policy states that with regard to Greece and Hungary, returns under the Dublin III Regulation are currently suspended, except in cases where there is evidence that the applicant is already a beneficiary of international protection in one of those states. In these cases, advice must be sought from senior staff as to whether or not to proceed with a take back request.[30]




Once the EU Member State or Schengen Associated State takes or is deemed to take responsibility for examining the asylum application on the basis of the Dublin III Regulation, the claim is refused as inadmissible on third country grounds without its substance being considered in the UK.


In general, applicants are detained when the proposed receiving state has accepted, or by default, deemed to have accepted, the UK’s request. Applicants are generally detained until removal, which usually happens under escort. A judgment relating to earlier Dublin policy and the circumstances in which applicants could be detained was promulgated in 2018.[31] The Supreme Court heard the government’s appeal and dismissed it.[32] Regulations laid in 2017provide a list of criteria to consider prior to deciding to detain but give wide discretion e.g. whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person is unlikely to return voluntarily to any other participating State determined to be responsible for consideration of their application for international protection under the Dublin III Regulation.[33]    


The Home Office was not able to provide figures on the average duration of the Dublin procedure in recent parliamentary questions.[34]


Personal interview


No personal interview takes place specifically relating to the Dublin procedure.


Information obtained in the screening interview, particularly about route of travel, is used to make a decision that the case should be referred to the Third Country Unit. The standard information read out from the screening form includes the following:


“It is possible that the United Kingdom may not be the state responsible for considering your asylum application. You will be informed of any application or decision to transfer your case to another country.”




There is no appeal on asylum grounds against a decision that a person may be returned to another country on the First List – i.e. through the Dublin III Regulation, and no appeal against a decision in the Dublin procedure may be made on the grounds that the asylum seeker would be sent to another country in breach of their rights under the ECHR or in breach of the Refugee Convention.[35] The one ground of appeal available against a Dublin removal (i.e. a removal to a First List country) is that the person's ECHR rights would be breached in the receiving country.[36] A human rights appeal of this kind may only be brought in the UK if the Home Office does not certify that the human rights claim is clearly unfounded. The Home Office, however, is required to certify that it is clearly unfounded unless there is evidence to the contrary.[37] The two Dublin states that fall outside of the First List are Croatia and Liechtenstein; in these cases if an appeal is made under the ECHR as outlined above, the case must be discussed with a senior caseworker to establish if it is appropriate to certify as clearly unfounded.[38]


In some cases in 2016, courts have also referred to the risk of breach of an individual’s right to asylum under Article 18 of the EU Charter as grounds for suspending a transfer, albeit not demonstrated on the facts in question.[39]


In cases where an appeal is available, an out of country appeal must be brought within 28 calendar days (where the human rights appeal is certified clearly unfounded); an in-country appeal (where the human rights appeal is not certified) must be brought within 14 days. There are very few appeals of this kind. Normally any challenge to removal based on breach of human rights in the receiving country is made by judicial review application challenging the Secretary of State’s certificate that the human rights claim is unfounded. The result is that the only suspensive appeal against a Dublin removal would be the rare case of a human rights claim which is not certified by the Home Office as clearly unfounded. Otherwise, the decision to remove under the Dublin Regulation can only be challenged by judicial review.


On the Second List, see section on Admissibility Procedure.


With regard to judicial review against the refusal to accept a “take charge” request, the Upper Tribunal held in 2018 that the principle of fairness requires the applicant to be given an opportunity to know the ‘gist’ of what is submitted against him or her in respect of the application of the Dublin criteria. Therefore in judicial review against the rejection of a “take charge” request by the UK, it is for the court or tribunal to decide whether the Dublin criteria have been correctly applied.[40]


Legal assistance


Before a Dublin certificate is issued, an asylum seeker has the same opportunity as any other asylum seeker to obtain access to free legal representation. They are affected by the limited resources and the lack of incentive for legal representatives to advise before the screening interview (see Regular Procedure: Legal Assistance). Once the Dublin decision is issued they are likely to be detained. If they already have a legal representative that person may continue to represent them. If not, they may, again subject to resources, obtain access to representation in detention (see section on Legal Assistance for Review of Detention). There are no special restrictions on legal aid in Dublin cases (see section on Regular Procedure: Legal Assistance) and judicial review is funded by legal aid, although only if the merits are considered strong, and if the Court grants permission for the case to go ahead. In practice that is likely to restrict any legal challenge.


Suspension of transfers


Greece: Transfers to Greece were generally suspended as a matter of practice following the European Court on Human Rights (ECtHR) judgment in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece,[42] and in anticipation of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decision in NS.[43] This was an executive decision applying to all potential transfers to Greece, and is kept under review in conjunction with the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and UNHCR.[44] However, decisions can still be made to return asylum seekers to Greece under the Dublin procedure, even if they are not implemented. There is no automatic legal mechanism to prevent such returns actually being carried out. Challenges must be made in individual cases, and practitioners say that some returns to Greece have been made since the decisions in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece.


Hungary: In the case of Ibrahimi and Abasi,[45] two Iranians challenged their removal to Hungary on the basis that they were at risk of refoulement, referred to in the case as ‘chain refoulement’ i.e. along a succession of unsafe countries including Serbia, Macedonia, Greece and Turkey. The High Court, in its ruling of 5 August 2016, referred to AIDA and UNHCR reports in its judgment and criticised the UK government for its “broad and sweeping generalisations about presumptions of compliance”.[46] Transfers are still being suspended.


Italy: In the NA (Sudan) ruling of 1 November 2016, the Court of Appeal upheld a transfer to Italy on the basis that no risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR was demonstrated. The High Court has also dismissed appeals challenging transfers to Italy earlier in the year.[47] In SM, however, the Upper Tribunal found that the circumstances before it, relating to a vulnerable person, were “markedly different” from established High Court case law on transfers to Italy.[48]


Bulgaria: The High Court found in Khaled (No 1) that the deficiencies of the Bulgarian asylum system were not such as to warrant a suspension of Dublin transfers.[49] In its assessment, the Court took into consideration elements such as the fact that UNHCR has not issued any position relating to returns to Bulgaria.[50] Despite the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of the appeal in HK (Iraq),[51] all Dublin transfers to Bulgaria were suspended until 15 July 2018, stayed behind a case known as JA (Iraq), heard in June 2018. Transfers have not resumed since then.


Austria: In Abdulkadir and Mohammed, the High Court decided on 28 June 2016 that a transfer to Austria was lawful, on the ground that there was no evidence of ‘systemic failure’ in the Austrian legal system to amount to an Article 3 ECHR violation or infringe upon Article 18 of the EU Charter. Although transfers have resumed only three people were transferred to Austria in 2019.


The UK does not automatically assume responsibility for examining asylum applications where transfers are suspended. If discussions with the receiving country become protracted so that it appears there is no realistic prospect of the transfer taking place, the asylum seeker may be released from detention. Once released from detention in these circumstances, asylum seekers may be granted accommodation and cash support. An asylum seeker who is the subject of a Dublin decision qualifies for reception conditions on the same conditions as those in the regular procedure.[52]


The situation of Dublin returnees


There are no reported issues regarding the situation of people returned to the UK under the Dublin regulation. Children reunited with family under Article 8 are not considered to be unaccompanied even if they are not dependants on a family member’s asylum claim. Concerns have been raised about the support they receive and the difficulties arising from them being part of families e.g. many do not qualify for legal aid and are not routinely assisted thought the asylum procedure.[53]


[1]See e.g. Minister for Immigration, Reply, Asylum: Written question, 121419, 11 January 2018, available at: http://bit.ly/2FDVnGs.

[2] CJEU, Case C-661/17 M.A., Judgment of 23 January 2019.

[3]Home Office, Dublin III Regulation, April 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/2wBbuE0.

[4]The Guardian, ‘Home Office chaos and incompetence lead to unlawful detentions, claim whistleblowers’, April 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/3asdPRk.

[5]Upper Tribunal, MS v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] UKUT 9 (IAC), 19 July 2018.

[6]Upper Tribunal, HA v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] UKUT 297 (IAC), 19 April 2018.

[7]Upper Tribunal, R (ZAT) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKUT 61 (IAC), 22 January 2016, available at: http://bit.ly/2jq9zLr.

[8]Court of Appeal, Secretary of State for the Home Department v ZAT [2016] EWCA Civ 810, 2 August 2016, available at: http://bit.ly/2kmEwiw.

[9]Government, ‘Joint press release by the governments of France and the United Kingdom’, 30 August 2016, available at: http://bit.ly/2bxKcEp.

[10]Government, ‘Home Secretary's statement on the transfer of unaccompanied minors from Calais camp’, 24 October 2016, available at: http://bit.ly/2kmugr8.

[11]Sandhurst Treaty, 18 January 2018, available at: http://bit.ly/2FU7w9T.

[12]Government, Transfers of children to the UK from the Calais Operation: November 2017, available at:  http://bit.ly/2FSWh1x.

[13]Refugee Rights Europe et al, Left out in the cold, October 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/2VDYmZg.

[14]Safe Passage and Praksis, Caught in the middle, July 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/2VVbtFA.

[15]Following CJEU, Case C-648/11 R (MA, BT, DA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Judgment of 6 June 2013, the UK is not able to apply the Dublin Regulation to unaccompanied minors.

[16]Upper Tribunal, R (RSM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKUT 124 (IAC), 12 April 2017, available at: http://bit.ly/2gZap0W.

[17]Upper Tribunal, R (SM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dublin Regulation – Italy) [2018] UKUT 429 (IAC), 4 December 2018.

[18]Upper Tribunal, HA v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] UKUT 297 (IAC), 19 April 2018.

[19]Schedule 3 Part 2, First List AITOCA.

[20]Home Office, Dublin III Regulation, November 2017, available at: http://bit.ly/2rmazo9.

[21]Para 339M Immigration Rules.

[22]Para 55.6.3 Enforcement Instructions and Guidance, available at: http://bit.ly/2FR3miU.

[23]Home Office, Asylum Instruction: Applicants with Poor Quality Fingerprints para 1.3.

[24]Ibid, para 8.1.

[25]High Court, R (NA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 1095 (Admin), 22 April 2015, available at: http://bit.ly/2jqTmFD.

[26]Court of Appeal, NA (Sudan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 1060, 1 November 2016, available at: http://bit.ly/2kLNdAY.

[27]Supreme Court, EM (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 12, 19 February 2014, available at: http://bit.ly/1dM83eJ.

[28]Court of Appeal, NA (Sudan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 1060, paras 107 and 156.

[29]Ibid, para 110.

[30]Home Office, Dublin III Regulation, April 2019, available at: http://bit.ly/2rmazo9.

[31]Court of Appeal, Hemmati v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 2122, 4 October 2018, available at: https://bit.ly/2S1EtLk.

[32]R (on the application of Hemmati and others) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) UKSC 56, 27 November 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/2RxOTzi

[33]UK Legislation, The transfer for determination of an application for international protection (detention) regulations 2017, available at:  https://bit.ly/2RG35q2.

[34]Minister for Immigration, Reply, Asylum: EU Countries: Written question, 202853, 25 January 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/2S0vCt3.

[35]Schedule 3, Part 2 AITOCA.

[36]Para 5, Schedule 3 Part 2 AITOCA.


[38]Home Office, Dublin III Regulation Guidance, available at: http://bit.ly/2rmazo9.

[39]See e.g. on Austria, High Court, Abdulkadir and Mohammed v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 1504 (Admin), 28 June 2016, available at: http://bit.ly/2jz6p32; on Malta, Upper Tribunal, R (Hassan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKUT 452 (IAC), 28 September 2016, available at: http://bit.ly/2jqXDsI.

[40]Upper Tribunal, MS v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] UKUT 9 (IAC), 19 July 2018.

[41]The ticked box concerning appeals refers to judicial review since there is no appeal.

[42]ECtHR, M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece, Application No. 30696/09, Judgment of 21 January 2011.

[43]The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office House of Lords, 25 Oct 2011: Column WA121, available at: http://bit.ly/1LkBdg0.

[44]Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Home Office, House of Lords, 23 January 2013, col. WA 209, available at: http://bit.ly/1fjjefT.

[45]High Court, Ibrahimi and Abasi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 2049 (Admin), 5 August 2016, available at: http://bit.ly/2bbliWq.

[46]bid, para 16.

[47]High Court, R (BG) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 786 (Admin), 12 April 2016, available at: http://bit.ly/1NooJV8; R (Adam) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 1352 (Admin), 9 June 2016, available at: http://bit.ly/2jQTq07.

[48]Upper Tribunal, R (SM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dublin Regulation – Italy) [2018] UKUT 429 (IAC), 4 December 2018.

[49]High Court, Khaled (No 1) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 857 (Admin), 18 April 2016, available at: http://bit.ly/2jr7pLv.

[50]Khaled (No 1), para 94.

[51]Court of Appeal, R (HK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 1871, 23 November 2017, available at: http://bit.ly/2sZu7PV.

[52]Information provided by ASAP. See also CJEU, Case 179/11 Cimade & GISTI v Ministre de l’interieur, 27 September 2012.

[53]Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit, Briefing paper on the experiences of children from the Calais camp in the north west of England, March 2017, available at: https://bit.ly/2rWEiD8.


Table of contents

  • Statistics
  • Overview of the legal framework
  • Overview of the main changes since the previous report update
  • Asylum Procedure
  • Reception Conditions
  • Detention of Asylum Seekers
  • Content of International Protection