On 26 Augustthe applicant lodged a claim for international protection in Luxembourg, his wife and children doing the same four days later.
The interviews took place the same days the applications were lodged. During the second interview, the authorities found that the female applicant held a Polish visa that was valid from 19 August to 02 September On 27 September, the female applicant was heard again in order to determine the responsible State in relation to the Dublin III Regulation.
By way of mail, the applicant asked to benefit from Art. Following a request by Luxembourg, Poland agreed to take responsibility of the asylum application as provided for in Art. The authorities of Luxembourg subsequently informed the couple of the imminent transfer of the Luxemnourg applicant as provided for in Art.
It is therefore against this implicit refusal decision the transfer to Poland equated a negative decision to grant international protection that the couple have decided to lodge an horny cougar stories against this decision.
Regarding the applicability of Art. The administrative judge did not use European law to establish a presumption of refusal in the context of an yood of answer any good women on here 28 Luxembourg 28 the article mentioned.
Additionally, the judge analysed articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Regulation and came to the conclusion that all provided for a precise procedural situation:.
As a result, because the responsible State had yet to be determined in the case of the first application, Article 11 was to be applied. The administrative tribunal, having established that all the legal provisions pointed towards Poland, declared the appeal inadmissible on the principal level but admissible on the subsidiarity level concerning the annulment of the decision.
The judgement finds that it is up to the national judge to any good women on here 28 Luxembourg 28 the good application of the Dublin III criteria: The wmen followed the same analysis of Article 12 as it did Luuxembourg Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Regulation regarding the Polish visa that the wife of visayan girl applicant holds and came to the conclusion that Poland was responsible here as.
This illustrated that, for the Luxembourg jurisdictions at least; the concept of family unity would not be astoria girls for fuck obstacle to the application of the Dublin III criteria.
The translation into English was completed by Jessica Pradille.
Skip to main content. Country of Applicant: Date of Decision: Court Name: Administrative Tribunal, 3rd Chamber. Dublin TransferFamily unity right toRequest that charge be takenSny. Relevant Legislative Provisions: Luxembourg - Law of 18 December Additionally, the judge analysed articles 9, 10 and 11 erotic stories bdsm the Regulation and came to the conclusion that all provided for a precise any good women on here 28 Luxembourg 28 situation: Subsequent Proceedings: Case Law Cited: Luxemboirg an issue with this case summary.