Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law

Tribunal gives go ahead for Dublin returns to Malta. Again.


Older content is locked

A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more


By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;

  • Single login for personal use
  • FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
  • Access to all Free Movement blog content
  • Access to all our online training materials
  • Access to our busy forums
  • Downloadable CPD certificates

The Upper Tribunal again finds that Dublin returns to Malta can go ahead:

(i) There have been significant developments in Malta during recent years. While there may be imperfections in the Maltese asylum decision making processes, these are not sufficient to preclude returns under the Dublin Regulation and, in particular, do not amount to a breach of Article 18 of the EU Charter.

(ii) While Article 18 of the EU Charter confers rights of a procedural nature, the evidence does not establish that these will be infringed in the event of either of the Applicants pursuing a fresh asylum claim in Malta.

(iii) The limitations of the mechanisms available under Maltese law for challenging refusal of asylum decisions do not infringe Article 18 of the EU Charter.

(iv) In judicial review, decisions of the Administrative Court are not binding on the Upper Tribunal: Secretary of State for Justice v RB[2010] UKUT 454 (AAC) applied.

(v) Per curiam : Article 18 of the EU Charter provides an avenue for challenging transfer decisions under the Dublin Regulation.

(vi) Per curiam : Where a Dublin Regulation transfer decision is challenged under Article 18 of the EU Charter, the ECHR “flagrant breach” standard does not apply. Rather, the test is whether there is a real risk of a breach of Article 18.

More Latin, and in the supposedly clear head note too. I leave this here:

By the by, I think the reference to the appellants’ cases being advanced “without distinction” is a reference to the similarity of the cases rather than the quality of the advocacy (para 1).

Source: Hassan & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dublin – Malta; EU Charter Art 18) (IJR) [2016] UKUT 452 (IAC) (28 September 2016)

Interested in refugee law? You might like Colin's book, imaginatively called "Refugee Law" and published by Bristol University Press.

Communicating important legal concepts in an approachable way, this is an essential guide for students, lawyers and non-specialists alike.

Relevant articles chosen for you
Picture of Colin Yeo

Colin Yeo

Immigration and asylum barrister, blogger, writer and consultant at Garden Court Chambers in London and founder of the Free Movement immigration law website.