The European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights determnig the State responsible for examining an Asylum Application

Article 6 of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU) as part of the 2009 Treaty of Lisbon states that the European Union recognizes the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. It also states fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). So, the fundamental rights system of the European Union consists of the constitutional traditions of the Member States of the Union, the rights of the ECHR and the obligatory provisions of the EU Charter. The ECJ refers to these three sources of law, while the ECtHR refers to the ECHR.Both, the ECJ and the ECtHR give judgments in cases concerning asylum and violation of human rights based on the European Union Regulation ( EC) no. 343/2003, the so-called Dublin II Regulation determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application, and reviewing compliance with the criteria for determining responsibility for examining the asylum application and the shortcomings of human rights protection. In the Abdullah case before the ECJ applicant was a Somali national who entered Greece irregularly by boat via Syria and Turkey and without having lodged an asylum application in Greece she travelled to Austria and applied for asylum. She did not apply for asylum in Greece due to deficiencies in the Greek asylum system. The ECJ held that once a Member State takes charge of an application on the basis of the Dublin II Regulation can only be overturned if there are systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure. She was not able to call into question the conditions for the reception of applicants for asylum in Greece and lost the case.In the Tarakhel case versus Switzerland before the ECtHR applicants claimed the violation of Article 3 of the ECHR that prohibits torture and ?inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. ? The ECtHR thought that in cases of a family with young children being deported to Italy, suggest that the State normally undertakes a thorough examination of the individual situation. This had not be done and applicants were admissible.It is obvious that the European Union does not provide for an effective remedy for the applicant who neglects the Dublin II system for asylum seekers.