EASO practical guide on the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation : personal interview and evidence assessment.
Date: 2019-11-08
Institutions: European Asylum Support Office
Subjects: EU Member State, European Union Agency for Asylum, application of EU law, asylum seeker, evidence, political asylum, regulation (EU), right of asylum, user guide

European Asylum Support Office

EASO  
Practical guide 
on the implementation 
of the Dublin III Regulation:

Personal interview 
and evidence assessment

EASO Practical Guide Series

October 2019

SUPPORT IS OUR MISSION

Neither the European Asylum Support Office nor any person acting on behalf of the European Asylum Support Office is 
responsible for the use that might be made of the following information.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019

© European Asylum Support Office, 2019
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the European Asylum Support Office 
copyright, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders.

Print 
PDF 

ISBN 978-92-9476-043-2 
ISBN 978-92-9476-042-5 

doi:10.2847/605772 
doi:10.2847/290115 

BZ-04-18-668-EN-C
BZ-04-18-668-EN-N

European Asylum Support Office

EASO  
Practical guide 
on the implementation 
of the Dublin III Regulation:

Personal interview 
and evidence assessment

EASO Practical Guide Series

October 2019

SUPPORT IS OUR MISSION

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 3

Contents

List of abbreviations .......................................................................................................................................................5

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................6

CHECKLISTS ...................................................................................................................................................................8
Legal framework of the Dublin system [back to checklist] ....................................................................................................................... 13
Territorial scope of the Dublin III Regulation ...............................................................................................................14
Personal scope of the Dublin III Regulation .................................................................................................... 15

GUIDANCE ...................................................................................................................................................................17
1. Application of the Dublin III Regulation [back to checklist] .................................................................................................................. 18
2. Provision of information [back to checklist]...........................................................................................................................................20
3. Dublin personal interview: objectives, requirements and interview techniques [back to checklist] ..................................................21
Objective of the Dublin personal interview .................................................................................................................21
Requirements of the personal interview ........................................................................................................ 22
Timing of the interview .................................................................................................................................... 22
Methodology ................................................................................................................................................... 23
Conducting the interview .................................................................................................................................24
Interviewing techniques and types of questions ............................................................................................ 25
Opening the interview ......................................................................................................................................26
Content of the interview ..................................................................................................................................27
Closing the interview ........................................................................................................................................27
4. Evidence assessment [back to checklist] ............................................................................................................................................... 33
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 33
The importance of evidence assessment ........................................................................................................ 33
Dublin indications ............................................................................................................................................ 33
Insufficient Dublin indications ......................................................................................................................... 34
Information requests ....................................................................................................................................... 34
Carrying out evidence assessment .................................................................................................................. 35
Criteria related to family unity [back to checklist] .........................................................................................................................37
Relevant definitions and considerations ..........................................................................................................37
Means of proof and circumstantial evidence ...................................................................................... 40
Means of proof in case of Articles 8, 9, 10 ...........................................................................................41
Circumstantial evidence in case of Articles 8, 9, 10 .............................................................................42
Criteria related to residence, entry and stay [back to checklist] .................................................................................................. 43
Relevant definitions and considerations ......................................................................................................... 43
Residence document ............................................................................................................................ 43
Visa (Article 12(2), (3), (4)) .................................................................................................................... 44
Means of proof in cases of a valid or expired residence document or visa (Article 12) .................... 45
Circumstantial evidence in case of valid or expired residence document or visa (Article 12) ........... 46
Means of proof in case of visa waived (Article 14) and irregular entry (Article 13(1)) ........................47
Means of proof in case of residence for at least five months – Article 13(2) ..................................... 48
Circumstantial evidence in case of visa waived entry (Article 14), irregular entry (Article 
13(1)), stay in a Member State for at least five months (Article 13(2)) ................................................49
Previous application for international protection [back to checklist] ...........................................................................................51
An asylum claim was lodged previously with another Member State ............................................................51
Assessing the applicability of the Dublin III Regulation........................................................................51
Obligation to take back an applicant to examine the application for international protection .........52
Obligation to take back the applicant to conduct the Dublin procedure ............................................52
Means of proof in case of take back procedure: ................................................................................. 53
Circumstantial evidence in case of take back procedure .................................................................... 54
Cessation of responsibilities – departure from the territory and expulsions [back to checklist] .................................................55
Cessation of responsibilities (Article 19(1), (2), (3)) ..........................................................................................55
Means of proof for cessation of responsibility – Article 19(2), 19(3) and Article 20(5) ..................... 56
Circumstantial evidence regarding cessation of responsibility – Article 19(2), 19(3) and 20(5) ........ 58
Specific considerations regarding Dublin transfers [back to checklist] ........................................................................................ 60

 
4 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

Assessing the evidence .................................................................................................................................... 60
Annex I – Areas to explore during the interview: family links .....................................................................................62
Annex II – Areas to explore during the interview: entry, stay & previous application .............................................. 64
Annex III – Summary tables on the list of means of proof and circumstantial evidence – Family unity ................... 66
Annex IV – Summary tables on the list of means of proof and circumstantial evidence – Residence, visa, 
irregular entry and stay for at least 5 months/legal entry ......................................................................................... 67
Annex V – Summary tables on the list of means of proof and circumstantial evidence – Previous 
applications for international protection, departure from the territory and expulsions .......................................... 69

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................................71

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 5

List of abbreviations

APD

CEAS

Charter

CJEU

Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 
2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection 
(recast)

Common European Asylum System

Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (2000/C 364/01)

Court of Justice of the EU

Dublin III Regulation

Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member 
State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in 
one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast)

EASO 

ECHR 

ECtHR 

EU

Eurodac

Eurodac II Regulation 

European Asylum Support Office 

European Convention on Human Rights

European Court of Human Rights

European Union 

Eurodac database 

Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
26 June 2013 on the establishment of ‘Eurodac’ for the comparison of fingerprints 
for the effective application of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 establishing the criteria 
and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an 
application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by 
a third-country national or a stateless person and on requests for the comparison 
with Eurodac data by Member States’ law enforcement authorities and Europol for 
law enforcement purposes, and amending Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 establishing 
a European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the 
area of freedom, security and justice

Implementing Regulation  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 of 2 September 2003 laying down 

detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 establishing 
criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for 
examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-
country national, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 
118/2014 of 30 January 2014

Member States

European Union Member States plus Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein 
applying the Dublin III Regulation 

RCD 

SIS II 

UNHCR 

VIS Regulation

Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 
laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection 
(recast)

Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 20 December 2006 on the establishment, operation and use of the second 
generation Schengen Information System 

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

Regulation (EC) No. 767/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
9 July 2008 concerning the Visa Information System (VIS) and the exchange of data 
between Member States on short-stay visas 

VIS

Visa Information System

 
6 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

Introduction

Why was this practical guide created? The EASO Practical Guide on the implementation of the Dublin III Regu-
lation: Personal interview and evidence assessment is a practical tool to support Dublin practitioners across all 
European Union (EU) Member States plus Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein applying the Dublin 
III Regulation (Member States) in their daily work. This is a soft convergence tool, which reflects the common 
standards.

The purpose of this practical guide is twofold. The guide assists the reader in conducting the Dublin personal 
interview with an applicant for international protection, as well as supporting the user to conduct an objective 
and impartial individual assessment of the evidence by applying the legal criteria and common standards equally. 
This is done in order to determine which Member State is responsible for examining the application for interna-
tional protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person.

The key legal instruments for this guide are Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member States responsible 
for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country 
national or a stateless person (recast) (Dublin III Regulation) and the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 
of 2 September 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 
establishing criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum 
application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (Dublin II Regulation), as amended by 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 118/2014 of 30 January 2014 (Implementing Regulation). This guide 
aims to translate the legal requirements with regard to the personal interview and the evidence assessment into 
concise guidance for practitioners.

What is the scope of this practical guide? This guide focuses on the information that should be provided to the 
applicant concerning the application of the Dublin III Regulation, as well as on the personal interview with the 
applicant conducted as part of the Dublin procedure, and the evidence assessment carried out by the practitioner 
in order to determine the responsible Member State.

The content of this guide is based on and refers to the provisions of the Dublin III Regulation. While drafting the 
guide, negotiations were ongoing on the Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 
establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an applica-
tion for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless 
person (recast). At the time of reading, the user should use and be informed by this guide in relation to the cor-
responding provisions of the respective legal instrument in force.

Who should use this practical guide? This guide is primarily intended for staff working in Dublin Units, registra-
tion officers, case officers and border guards, who conduct interviews with applicants and carry out the assess-
ment to determine the responsible Member State on behalf of the national competent authorities. Additionally, 
it could represent a useful tool for other actors involved in the Dublin procedure such as police officers, the judici-
ary, legal representatives, social workers, as well as anyone interested in these aspects of the implementation of 
the Dublin III Regulation.

This practical guide aims at catering for the needs of practitioners with various degrees of experience: from the 
beginner case officers to those with years of experience. The layers of this guide (guidance, checklists and refer-
ences) and content could be used differently, depending on the needs of the user.

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 7

How to use this practical guide? The practical guide is structured in three layers, which could be used indepen-
dently, or in an interlinked manner.

Checklists

 ► to be used as a practical reminder by those 
who are already familiar with the topic of 
personal interview and evidence assessment 
in the context of the Dublin system

Guidance

References

 ► brief and visual guidance through 
the different elements when conducting 
the personal interview and evidence 
assessment in the context of the Dublin system

 ► references to legislation, relevant 
case‑law and additional resources

In addition to providing structured guidance, this practical guide can be used as a support to conduct self-evaluation 
and/or to carry out quality assessment.

This practical guide contains suggested good practices in yellow boxes and reference to case-law in blue boxes. 
At the beginning of each section there is a reference to the relevant legal provisions in red tables. This reference, 
however, is not intended to limit the scope of the following paragraph to those articles mentioned; instead it is 
designed to constitute a reference to the legal provision which might be of relevance to the case at hand. Refer-
ence is made to existing EASO tools or relevant EASO training modules in grey boxes.

How was this practical guide developed? The guide was created by a working group of experts from Member 
States, facilitated by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and with the valuable input from the European 
Commission and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). Before its finalisation, the guide was 
consulted with all Member States.

How does this practical guide relate to other EASO support tools? EASO’s mission is to support Member States 
through, inter alia, common training and common quality. As with all EASO support tools, the Practical Guide 
on the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation: Personal interview and evidence assessment is based on the 
common standards of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). It is understood that not all participating 
Member States are bound by the obligations of the CEAS. Those countries to whom the obligations do not apply 
should consider the references to the specific CEAS directives below only where it is applicable. This guide is 
built within the framework of the CEAS as other practical guides, and should be seen as a complement to other 
available EASO tools. Its consistency with those tools has been a primary consideration, especially in relation to 
the closely related EASO training curriculum modules on the Dublin III Regulation. The EASO practical guides on 
Personal Interview and Evidence Assessment also constituted valuable sources of information in the develop-
ment of this tool.

This is a practical guide developed by using the EASO Quality Matrix methodology and it should be used in con-
junction with the other available practical tools: https://www.easo.europa.eu/practical-tools.

 
8 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

CHECKLISTS

 ► to be used as a practical reminder by those who are already familiar 
with the topic of personal interview and evidence assessment in the 
context of the Dublin system

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 9

Legal framework of the Dublin system
 □ Apply the legal provisions according to the material facts
 □ Remember the territorial scope of the Dublin III Regulation
 □ Remember that beneficiaries of international protection do not fall under the scope of the Dublin III 

Regulation

1. Application of the Dublin III Regulation
 □ The application for international protection is first lodged
 □ The hierarchy of criteria is respected
 □ Specific considerations regarding dependency are taken into account

2. Provision of information
 □ The appropriate content of the information is provided:

 □ objectives of the Dublin III Regulation;
 □ consequences of making another application in a different Member State;
 □ hierarchy of criteria of responsibility;
 □ personal interview;
 □ the possibility of submitting information regarding the responsibility determination procedure;
 □ possibility to challenge a transfer decision;
 □ Member States may exchange the data of the applicants;
 □ the applicants have the right to access data related to them;

 □ The information is provided

 □ in writing;
 □ ‘in a language that the applicant understands or is reasonably supposed to understand’;
 □ if necessary, the information is provided orally;
 □ the information is provided through the common leaflets contained in Annex X and XI Implementing 

Regulation;

 □ the leaflets are complemented with information specific to the Member State;

3. Dublin personal interview: objectives, requirements and interview techniques
 □ Requirements of the interview are met:
 □ it takes place in a timely manner;
 □ it is conducted before any decision to transfer the applicant is taken;
 □ it is conducted in a language that the applicant understands or is reasonably supposed to understand;
 □ it takes place under conditions that ensure confidentiality;
 □ it is conducted by a qualified person.

Methodology
 □ Preparation
 □ Case familiarisation
 □ Practical arrangements
 □ Appropriate case officer and interpreter
Opening the interview
 □ Welcome/introduction
 □ Verify the understanding between the interpreter and the applicant
 □ Inform the applicant of the purpose and content of the interview
 □ Inform the applicant about the duty to cooperate

 
10 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

3. Dublin personal interview: objectives, requirements and interview techniques
Conducting the interview
 □ Attitude

 □ Neutrality
 □ Non-judgmental attitude
 □ Avoid misunderstanding due to culture-bound assumptions, values or expectations

 □ Manage the interview situation

 □ Establish and maintain an atmosphere of trust
 □ Focus on the applicant
 □ Manage the dialogue
 □ Manage the interpreter
 □ Encourage the applicant by being an active listener

 □ Interview techniques and types of questions

 □ Keep questions simple
 □ Use open questions
 □ Use closed questions appropriately
 □ Use clarifying and reflective questions
 □ Ask correct questions in a correct and fair way
 □ Ask questions according to the capability and educational level of the applicant
 □ Opportunity to clarify inconsistencies

During the interview

 □ provide information on the application of the Dublin III Regulation orally;
 □ applicants can seek clarifications on any aspects of the operation of the Dublin III Regulation that they 

do not understand;

Closing the interview
 □ Ensure that the relevant facts have been covered during the interview
 □ The applicant is asked if there is any additional information they would like to provide
 □ The applicant is informed about the possibility to ptovide further supporting documents
 □ The applicant is informed about the next steps of the process
 □ The applicant is informed about the time limits set out in the Dublin III Regulation
 □ The applicant is informed about the written summary and how to access it.

4. Evidence assessment
 □ There are Dublin indications in the case

 □ Proof is available
 □ Circumstantial evidence is available

 □ Dublin indications are insufficient

Criteria related to family unity
 □ Definitions

 □ Family member
 □ Relative
 □ Minor
 □ Unaccompanied minor
 □ Relation of dependency
 □ Family in broader sense

 □ Unaccompanied minors (Article 8)
 □ Family member who is beneficiary of international protection (Article 9)
 □ Family member who is applicant for international protection (Article 10)
 □ Rules for simultaneous applications (Article 11)
 □ Dependent persons (Article 16)
 □ Discretionary clauses (Article 17)

 □ Article 17(1), the souvereignty clause
 □ Article 17(2), the discretionary clause

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 11

 □ Means of proof and circumstantial evidence

 □ Unaccompanied child and family members
 □ Dependent (adult) child, sibling, parent
 □ Means of proof in case of Articles 8, 9, 10

 □ Written confirmation of the information by the Member State
 □ Extracts from registers
 □ Residence permits/temporary residence authorisations issued to the family member
 □ Evidence that the persons are related
 □ DNA or blood test
 □ Consent of the persons concerned

 □ Circumstantial evidence in case of Articles 8, 9, 10
 □ Verifiable information from the applicant
 □ Statements by the family members concerned
 □ Reports/confirmation of the information by an international organisation, such as UNHCR

Criteria related to residence, entry and stay
 □ Definitions

 □ Residence document

 □ Valid residence document
 □ Multiple residence documents
 □ Expired residence documents

 □ Visa

 □ Valid visa
 □ Multiple visa
 □ Expired visa
 □ Irregular entry
 □ Continuous stay in a Member State for at least five months
 □ Visa waived entry
 □ Application in an international transit area of an airport

 □ Means of proof in cases of valid or expired residence document or visa

 □ Residence document
 □ Visa
 □ VIS hit
 □ Extracts from registers of aliens or similar registers
 □ Reports/confirmation of the information by the Member State which issued the residence document or 

visa

 □ Circumstantial evidence in case of valid or expired residence document or visa

 □ Detailed, verifiable statements of the applicant
 □ Reports/confirmation of the information by the Member State which did not issue the residence 

document

 □ Reports/confirmation of the information by an international organisation, such as UNHCR
 □ Reports/confirmation of the information by family members, travelling companions

 □ Means of proof in case of visa waived and irregular entry

 □ Entry stamp in a passport
 □ Exit stamp
 □ Tickets conclusively establishing entry at an external frontier
 □ Positive match by Eurodac
 □ Fingerprints

 □ Means of proof in case of residence for at least five months

 □ Residence authorisations
 □ Requests to leave the territory or expulsion order issued on dates at least five months apart or that 

have not been enforced

 □ Extracts from the records of hospitals, prisons, detention centres

 
12 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

Criteria related to residence, entry and stay
 □ Circumstantial evidence in case of visa waived entry, irregular entry, residence in a Member State for at 

least 5 months
 □ Detailed, verifiable statements of the applicant
 □ Reports/confirmation of the information by another Member State or third country
 □ Reports/confirmation of the information by an international organisation, such as UNHCR
 □ Reports/confirmation of the information by family members, travelling companions
 □ Fingerprints
 □ Tickets, hotel bills, entry cards, etc.

Previous application for international protection
 □ An asylum claim was lodged previously with another Member State
 □ The Dublin III Regulation is applicable
 □ Obligation to take back an applicant to examine the application for international protection
 □ Obligation to take back the applicant to conduct the Dublin procedure
 □ Means of proof in cases of take back procedure

 □ Positive match by Eurodac
 □ Form submitted by the applicant (application form)
 □ Official report drawn up by the authorities
 □ Fingerprints taken in connection with an application
 □ Extracts from register of aliens or similar registers
 □ Written report by the authorities attesting that an application has been made

 □ Circumstantial evidence in case of take back procedure

 □ Detailed and verifiable information provided by the applicant
 □ Reports/confirmation of the information by an international organisation, such as UNHCR
 □ Reports/confirmation of the information by family members, travelling companions

Cessation of responsibilities – departure from the territory and expulsions
 □ Cessation of responsibility
 □ Means of proof in case of cessation of responsibility

 □ Exit stamp
 □ Extracts from third country registers
 □ Tickets conclusively establishing departure from or entry at external frontier
 □ Report / confirmation by the Member State from which the applicant left the territory of the Member 

States

 □ Confirmation of the information regarding expulsion by the third country
 □ Stamp from a third ountry bordering on a Member State
 □ Fingerprints
 □ Written proof from the authorities that the alien has actually been expelled

 □ Circumstantial evidence in case of cessation of responsibility

 □ Detailed and verifiable information provided by the applicant
 □ Reports/confirmation of the information by an international organisation, such as UNHCR
 □ Reports/confirmation of the information by family members, travelling companions
 □ Exit stamp
 □ Fingerprints
 □ Tickets, hotel bills, entry cards, etc.
 □ Other evidence

Specific considerations regarding Dublin transfers
 □ Assessing the evidence

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 13

Legal framework of the Dublin system [back to checklist]

The Dublin system is the cornerstone of the CEAS and aims at effectively determining the Member State respon-
sible for examining an application for international protection.

The Dublin system consists of three regulations:

Dublin III Regulation

Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 
June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State 
responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of 
the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast)

Dublin Implementing Regulation

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 of 2 September 2003 laying down detailed rules for the 
application of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 establishing criteria and mechanisms for determining the 
Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-
country national, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 118/2014 of 30 January 2014

Eurodac II Regulation

Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the 
establishment of Eurodac for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of Regulation 
(EU) No 604/2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State 
responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member 
States by a third-country national or a stateless person and on requests for the comparison with Eurodac 
data by Member States’ law enforcement authorities and Europol for law enforcement purposes, 
and amending Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 establishing a European Agency for the operational 
management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (recast)

With regards to the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation, both the Visa Information System (VIS) as well as 
the Schengen Information System (SIS II) are relevant.

 
14 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 of the European Parliament and the Council of 9 July 2008 concerning the Visa Infor-
mation System (VIS) and the exchange of data between Member States on short-stay visas (VIS Regulation) sets 
out the rules in Article 2(b) on how to:

…improv[e] the implementation of the common visa policy … and consultation between central visa 
authorities by facilitating the exchange of data between Member States on applications and on the deci-
sions relating thereto, in order … to prevent the bypassing of the criteria for the determination of the 
Member State responsible for examining the application.

The VIS applies to all Schengen States (Denmark has decided to implement it). However, it is important to note 
that not all Member States applying the Dublin III Regulation are bound by the VIS Regulation.

The SIS II is is defined in the following legal instruments: Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 on Border control coop-
eration and Regulation (EU) 2018/1862 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 November 2018 on 
the establishment, operation and use of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the field of police coopera-
tion and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, amending and repealing Council Decision 2007/533/JHA, and 
repealing Regulation (EC) No 1986/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Decision 
2010/261/EU.

The SIS II is an information system for security and border management in Europe. Each Member State has 
a national Supplementary Information Request at the National Entries (SIRENE) Bureau which serves as a single 
point of contact for the information exchange. The system helps the authorities in Europe to safeguard internal 
security in the absence of internal border checks. 

SIS II operates in 26 Member States (with the exception of Ireland and Cyprus) and 4 Associated countries. Some 
Member States have special arrangements: Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia are not yet part of the Schengen area, 
but both Romania and Bulgaria use SIS, while Croatia has restricted usage. The United Kingdom is not part of the 
Schengen area but operates SIS II.

In addition, when applying the Dublin procedure, the case officers should bear in mind the provisions laid down 
in Directive 2013/32/EU of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international 
protection (APD) if it is applicable. The provisions of the APD ‘apply in addition and without prejudice to the provi-
sions concerning the procedural safeguards regulated under [Dublin] Regulation’ as stated in recital 12 Dublin III 
Regulation and recital 54 APD.

Case-law

‘The Dublin system ... seeks, as is apparent from recitals 4 and 5 thereof, to make it possible, in particular, to 
determine rapidly the Member State responsible, so as to guarantee effective access to the procedures for 
granting international protection and not to compromise the objective of processing applications for interna-
tional protection expeditiously’.

CJEU judgement of 16 February 2017, CK and others v Supreme Court of Republic Slovenia, C-578/16 PPU, 
para. 57

Territorial scope of the Dublin III Regulation

Developed from the 1990 Dublin Convention, the Dublin system was incorporated into European Union law 
through the Dublin II Regulation and Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 (the Eurodac Regulation). In 2001, Norway 
and Iceland joined as associated countries. Denmark decided to opt in by an agreement of 2006, and confirmed 
the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation by a parliament decision of December 2013. Switzerland and 
Liechtenstein joined as associated countries in 2008 and 2011 respectively.

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 15

The Regulation therefore applies to 32 Member States:

Dublin Regulation Member States

Countries “associated” to the Dublin 
Regulation
European Union

Personal scope of the Dublin III Regulation

The Dublin III Regulation applies to third country nationals (defined in Article 2(a) Dublin III Regulation) or state-
less persons who applied for international protection in one of the Member States. The scope of the Dublin III 
Regulation encompasses applicants for international protection. Beneficiaries of international protection do not 
fall under the scope of the Dublin III Regulation. The term ‘applicant’ is defined in Article 2(c) Dublin III Regulation.

Chapter V Dublin III Regulation, and in particular, Article 18(1)(b) refers to applicants whose application is under 
examination, Article 18(1)(c) refers to a third country national or stateless person who has ‘withdrawn the 
application under examination and made an application in another Member State’, or ‘who is on the territory 
of another Member State without a residence document’. Article 18(1)(d) referes to ‘a third-country national or 
a stateless person whose application has been rejected and who made an application in another Member State 
or who is on the territory of another Member State without a residence document’.

Regarding the applicants rejected with a first or final decision by another Member State who did not lodge a new 
application in the Member State where they are present, Article 24 Dublin III Regulation enables the Member 
States to decide to apply either the Dublin III Regulation or Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning 
illegally staying third-country nationals (Return Directive).

 
16 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

Starting with an application for international protection in Member State A, the Dublin procedure with Member 
State B can be schematically described as follows:

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 17

GUIDANCE

 ► brief and visual guidance through the different elements when 
conducting the personal interview and evidence assessment 
in the context of the Dublin system

 
18 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

1. Application of the Dublin III Regulation [back to checklist]

In order to determine the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection 
lodged by a third-country national or a stateless person, Article 7(1) Dublin III Regulation obliges Member States 
to apply the criteria set out in Chapter III (‘hierarchy of criteria’) where an application is first lodged.

Dublin III Regulation

Chapter III

There are two sets of criteria:

1)  criteria designed to protect family unity (Articles 8-11, 16-17); and
2)  criteria relating to the responsibility of ‘the Member State which played the greatest part in the applicant’s 

entry into or residence on the territories of the Member States’ (Articles 12 to 15).

The ‘hierarchy of criteria’ for determining the Member State responsible set out in Chapter III Dublin III Regulation 
means that the criteria are to be applied in the order set out below:

Family unity

•  Unaccompanied minor (Article 8)
•  Family members who are beneficiaries of international protection (Article 9)
•  Family members who are applicants for international protection (Article 10)
•  Family procedure (Article 11)

Greatest part in 
entry or residence

•  Issue of residence document or visa (Article 12)
•  Irregular entry or stay (Article 13)
•  Visa waived entry (Article 14)
•  Application in an international transit area of an airport (Article 15)

The Member State responsible ‘shall be determined on the basis of the situation obtaining when the applicant 
first lodged his or her application for international protection with a Member State’ (Article 7(2) Dublin III Regula-
tion). This Member State has to consider all available evidence related to family members, relatives or other fam-
ily relations of the applicant (Article 7(2) and 7(3) Dublin III Regulation).

Member States apply the Dublin III Regulation in conformity with European and international human rights 
obligations, including the 1951 Refugee Convention and in particular the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the 
European Union (the Charter), the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the relevant case-law of 
the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), as well as that of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

In order to effectively implement the Dublin III Regulation, Member States shall establish robust cooperation 
within the framework of the Regulation and apply the principle of mutual trust among them with respect to 
asylum policy.

The aim of the Dublin system is to guarantee that for each asylum claim lodged in any of the Member States there 
will only ever be one responsible Member State:

•  If none of the criteria listed in Chapter III applies, the first Member State  ‘in which the application for 

international protection was lodged shall be responsible for examining it’ (Article 3(2) first subparagraph).

•  If a transfer cannot be carried out due to ‘systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception 

conditions for applicants’ in the responsible Member State (Article 3(2) second subparagraph) or because the 
authorities in the transferring Member State can reasonably foresee that the transfer would lead to a real risk 
of violation of Article 4 Charter, the determination of responsibility will exclude the Member State where the 
risk is likely to occur.

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 19

Specific considerations: dependent person and discretionary clauses

Dublin III Regulation

Implementing Regulation

Articles 16 and 17

Article 11 

In addition to the criteria above, the Dublin III Regulation may establish responsibility on the basis of dependent 
person and discretionary clauses.

Article 16 contains a possibility to bring together an applicant who is dependent on the assistance of their child, 
sibling or parent legally resident in one of the Member States with said person. It also contains the possibility 
to bring together the applicant’s child, sibling or parent legally resident in one of the Member States where said 
person is dependent on the assistance of the applicant, on account of pregnancy, new born child, serious illness, 
severe disability or old age.

Case-law

In its judgment of 6 November 2012 in case K v Bundesasylamt, C-245/11, the CJEU clarified the following:

‘A dependency link is decisive for the determination of responsibility if no exceptional circumstances hinder its 
application. Article 16 therefore constitutes an additional “quasi criterion”’.

Article 17 Dublin III Regulation sets out discretionary clauses. The ‘sovereignty clause’ (Article 17(1)) allows Mem-
ber States to take responsibility for an application lodged with it even if it is not the responsible Member State 
according to the criteria. The ‘humanitarian clause’ (Article 17(2)) may be applied upon request of a Member 
State ‘in order to bring together any family relations, on humanitarian grounds based in particular on family or 
cultural considerations’.

 
20 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

2. Provision of information [back to checklist]

Dublin III Regulation

Article 4

The applicant’s right to information as set out in Article 4 Dublin III Regulation is a central prerequisite to guaran-
tee procedural fairness. According to Article 4(1) Dublin III Regulation, as soon as an application for international 
protection is lodged in a Member State, the competent authorities shall inform the applicant on the application 
of the Regulation and in particular:

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

the objectives of the Dublin III Regulation and the consequences of making another application in a dif-
ferent Member State as well as the consequences of moving from one Member State to another during 
the Dublin procedure or during the examination of the application for international protection;
the hierarchy of criteria of responsibility including the possibility that an application for international 
protection lodged in one Member State can result in that Member State becoming responsible even if 
such responsibility is not based on those criteria;
the personal interview and the possibility of submitting information regarding the responsibility deter-
mination procedure including information about the presence of family members, relatives or any other 
family relations in the Member States;
the possibility to challenge a transfer decision and, where applicable, apply for suspension of the trans-
fer, as well as the time limits for the legal remedies;
the possibility that the Member State in which the applicant currently finds themselves may exchange 
their data with other Member States in order to determine responsibility;
their right to access data relating to them and to correct any inaccurate information or delete the data if 
it was unlawfully processed, as well as the procedures for exercising these rights.

In accordance with Article 4(2), the information shall be provided:

in writing;
‘in a language that the applicant understands or is reasonably supposed to understand’;

• 
• 
•  where necessary (in cases of persons with special procedural needs), for the proper understanding, the 

• 

information shall also be supplied orally;
this information shall be provided through the common leaflets contained in Annex X and XI Implement-
ing Regulation as provided in Article 4(3) Dublin III Regulation, and 

•  complemented with information specific to the Member State.

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 21

3. Dublin personal interview: objectives, requirements 
and interview techniques [back to checklist]

Dublin III Regulation

APD

Article 5

Article 14

Objective of the Dublin personal interview

The Dublin III Regulation contains an obligation for the determining Member State to conduct a personal inter-
view with the applicant (Dublin personal interview).

The main focus of the interview is to gather all facts that are relevant for the determination of the Member State 
responsible. Consequently, the Dublin personal interview is different in scope and focus from the personal inter-
view on the substance of the application for international protection under Article 14 APD.

The objective of the Dublin personal interview is twofold:

Dublin personal interview

The interview is meant to ‘facilitate the 
process of determining the Member State 
responsible’, as the information gathered 
should help to establish the relevant facts 
for determining responsibility. 

The interview ‘shall also allow the proper 
understanding of the information supplied 
to the applicant in accordance with 
Article 4’. 

In this context, the Dublin personal interview has the potential to serve multiple purposes:

• 
• 

• 

• 
• 

it allows authorities to provide information on the application of the Dublin III Regulation orally;
it enables applicants to seek clarifications on any aspects of the operation of the Dublin III Regulation that 
they do not understand;
it enables applicants to provide the information necessary for a correct determination of responsibility, 
including the presence of family members in another Member State;
it enables the applicant to make their views known effectively;
it permits authorities to directly clarify aspects of the information provided by the applicant in an ef-
ficient manner.

The Member State conducting the determination procedure may also decide to send an information request 
under the terms of Article 34 Dublin III Regulation (see Annex V of the Implementing Regulation) in order to 
gather any additional relevant information.

This section covers general considerations related to the Dublin personal interview. The specific topics that need 
to be addressed during the interview will be discussed extensively under the section Evidence assessment.

Conducting the Dublin personal interview is mandatory with a few exceptions.
The Dublin personal interview may be omitted if:

•  the applicant has absconded; or

 
22 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

•  ‘after having received the information referred to in Article 4, the applicant has already provided the 

information relevant to determine the Member State responsible by other means. The Member State omitting 
the interview shall give the applicant the opportunity to present all further information which is relevant to 
correctly determine the Member State responsible before a decision is taken to transfer the applicant to the 
Member State responsible pursuant to Article 26(1).’ (Article 5(2))

Requirements of the personal interview

There are a number of requirements that have to be met when conducting the personal interview.
The interview should:

‘take place in a timely manner and, in any event, before any decision is taken to 
transfer the applicant to the Member State responsible […]’ (Article 5(3))

‘be conducted in a language that the applicant understands or is reasonably supposed 
to understand and in which he or she is able to communicate. Where necessary, Member 
States shall have recourse to an interpreter who is able to ensure appropriate communication 
between the applicant and the person conducting the personal interview’ (Article 5(4))

‘take place under conditions which ensure appropriate confidentiality’ (Article 5(5))

‘be conducted by a qualified person under national law’ (Article 5(5)) 

The Member State conducting the Dublin personal interview ‘shall make a written summary thereof’ contain-
ing ‘at least the main information supplied by the applicant at the interview’. Moreover, the Member State shall 
‘ensure that the applicant and/or legal advisor or other counsellor who is representing the applicant have timely 
access to the summary’ (Article 5(6)).

Timing of the interview

The main purpose of the Dublin interview is to facilitate the process of determining the Member State responsi-
ble. In order to avoid prolongation of the determination process or even erroneous determination of responsibil-
ity, it is advisable to conduct the interview shortly after the application for international protection was lodged in 
accordance with Article 20(2) Dublin III Regulation. The most appropriate time to conduct the interview is before 
the request to take charge or take back the applicant is sent to the other Member State. This would also secure 
a proper understanding by the applicant of the setup and the rules of the Dublin system in line with Article 4 
Dublin III Regulation.

However, the Dublin III Regulation does not stipulate exactly when the interview should take place, only that 
the interview must be held in a timely manner and before the transfer decision is taken. Consequently, the 
interview has to be scheduled at the latest after the requested Member State has accepted to take charge or take 
back the applicant.

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 23

Depending on the setup of the national asylum system, the Dublin personal interview may be integrated into the 
registration interview, provided that the requirements for the personal interview are met. However, as relevant 
information for responsibility is, in practice, gathered via the Eurodac database, it should be ensured that the case 
officer who conducts the interview knows the result of the comparison of fingerprints with the existing Eurodac 
data. If this is not the case, a second Dublin personal interview should be conducted if the Central system trans-
mits a hit pursuant to Article 9(5), 15(2) or 17(5) Eurodac II Regulation, in order to ask further questions from the 
applicant in connection with the information based on which another Member State is deemed to be responsible, 
as there might be individual circumstances which can influence the determination procedure.

Methodology

Preparation

Preparation is the key to an effective interview. The better prepared the case officer, the more relevant the ques-
tions asked thus the more efficient the interview. Failure to prepare often results in irrelevant questions and may 
lead to the need for further information gathering and potentially an additional interview.

An effective interview that collects relevant evidence about the key aspects of responsibility determination is 
essential for the determination of the responsible Member State.

Case familiarisation

The basic point of case familiarisation is to collect important information and documents before the interview 
takes place.

If the national procedure allows for this prior to the interview:

•  Check available databases (Eurodac, VIS, national system)

Information held on available databases or systems is relevant to the assessment of the responsibility of another 
Member State. This information could include: information on family members, visa, residence permit, entry, 
Eurodac hit, previous procedures.

•  Check additional information relevant for the determination of the responsible Member State (registra-

tion forms, other documents, documents submitted by the applicant, etc.)

In particular, additional information or documents pertaining to the applicant’s identity, nationality, family situa-
tion, personal circumstances and travel route may be already available.

Practical arrangements

In order for the interview to go ahead smoothly at the appointed time, the case officer must ensure that all 
preliminary arrangements have been put in place in order to create a safe and friendly environment. Such an 
interview environment will help to obtain the necessary information for determining responsibility.

Depending on national legislation and practices, the case officer should make the necessary arrangements with 
the applicant’s legal representative or other persons who might be admitted to the interview such as a UNHCR 
representative or person providing legal or other counsel, emotional or medical support. This may be particularly 
relevant if the applicant has special procedural needs.

Appropriate case officer and interpreter

According to Article 5 Dublin III Regulation, ‘the personal interview shall take place under conditions which 
ensure appropriate confidentiality. It shall be conducted by a qualified person under national law’.

The person conducting the interview should be competent to take into account all relevant personal and general 
circumstances surrounding the application. If requested by the applicant, and wherever possible, it is advisable 
that the person conducting the interview and the interpreter are of the same sex as the applicant.

 
24 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

Conducting the interview

The way the case officer conducts the interview has a significant impact on the overall quality and quantity of the 
information they gather. Considerations include the attitude of the case officer as well as their verbal and non-
verbal communication.

EASO training modules on interview techiques and the Dublin III Regulation

National administrations may wish to consider whether staff conducting Dublin personal interviews, includ-
ing border guards and registration officers follow the EASO training modules on Interview Techniques and on 
the Dublin III Regulation. The aim of the interview techniques module is to assist case officers to acquire the 
knowledge, skills and attitudes that will enable them to conduct personal interviews in a professional man-
ner. The EASO training module on the Dublin III Regulation provides participants with knowledge and skills of 
fundamental issues concerning the application of the Dublin III Regulation and the way it operates. Trainees 
are also provided with the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the Eurodac database and the electronic 
network ‘DubliNet’. Besides acquiring knowledge of the purpose and content of the Regulation, participants 
learn how to apply specific aspects of it, such as family reunification or guarantees for unaccompanied minors.

Attitude

Neutrality. The case officer needs to be neutral. The case officer should try to be as objective and clear as pos-
sible. They should not be influenced by other cases or their own personal beliefs or opinions.

Non-judgemental attitude. The case officer should use an appropriate tone during the interview, display a non-
judgemental attitude and remain unbiased and inquisitive in their approach and reactions to the applicant’s 
statements, including when there are, for example, indications of inconsistencies, forged documents or exclud-
able acts.

Avoid misunderstanding due to culture-bound assumption, values or expectations. Even if the case officer has 
a good knowledge about the applicant’s culture and traditions, it does not mean that the case officer and the 
applicant automatically understand each other. Self-awareness and self-reflection are significant factors contrib-
uting to an open atmosphere and to capture relevant facts from the applicant´s point of view.

Managing the interview situation

Establish and maintain an atmosphere of trust. Article 5(5) Dublin III Regulation stresses the importance of con-
fidentiality and trust in all interviews including Dublin personal interviews. This requirement needs to be adhered 
to.

In the Dublin personal interview, the case officer gathers accurate and reliable information about the applicant’s 
travel routes, applications for international protection lodged in any other Member State and personal/fam-
ily situation. The way in which the case officer handles the interpersonal communication in the interview may 
greatly influence both the quality and the quantity of the information obtained. The case officer has the respon-
sibility to create an atmosphere of trust and confidence. Having a professional attitude is essential and showing 
empathy can help achieve this. Developing a good communication atmosphere, in which all the persons involved 
feel safe and interact in a positive manner, helps the applicant to reduce feelings of stress, anxiety or distrust, and 
encourages the applicant to provide information. Subtly mirroring the applicant’s body language, posture and 
pace (tempo) could aid in fostering an atmosphere of trust.

Focus on the applicant. The interview should be regarded as a dialogue in which the applicant should do most of 
the talking. The case officer’s verbal and non-verbal communication should make clear to the applicant that they 
are in focus. The case officer should also adjust their manner of communication according to the needs of the 
applicant. In practice this means using appropriate language, giving information in a way that the applicant is able 
to understand, picking up signs from non-verbal communication and taking any intercultural issues into account.

Manage the dialogue. The case officer is responsible for obtaining the essential information during the interview 
and assist the applicant in bringing forward all relevant elements for the responsibility determination procedure. 
The case officer could follow an interview plan (based on a logical chronological or thematic structure), but it is 
also important to remain flexible.

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 25

Manage the interpreter. The interpreter plays an important role in conducting the interview. The language skills 
of the interpreter and the handling of sensitive situations are two essential elements. The interpreter translates 
directly what is said. However, it is important that the case officer addresses the applicant directly (in the first 
person) and not through the interpreter using third-person phrasing regarding the applicant. The interpreter 
should not express opinion or offer advice to the case officer or to the applicant. The interpreter should have no 
connection to the applicant.

The case officer should confirm that the selected interpreter has the requisite skills and knowledge and is able to 
provide an accurate and impartial interpretation of the applicant’s account in accordance with national proce-
dures. The case officer should ensure that the interpreter acts neutrally and impartially. In case the case officer 
has any concerns about the ability of the interpreter, this should be addressed in accordance with national 
procedures.

Encourage the applicant by being an active listener. The case officer should listen to the applicant and direct 
their attention verbally and non-verbally in order to improve communication skills and to help avoid misunder-
standing. As this is not the interview in order to examine the applicant’s qualification for international protec-
tion but to apply the Dublin III Regulation, the case officer should remain focused on the salient topics. The case 
officer should demonstrate that they are actively listening to the applicant throughout the interview; try to take 
a more active role if the applicant has difficulty speaking freely; introduce a topic each time a new one is raised; 
give the applicant enough time to concentrate and reflect. If the applicant goes off point the case officer should 
try to bring the narrative back on track in a sensitive manner.

Interviewing techniques and types of questions

The case officer should use all the indicative interview techniques when conducting a Dublin interview and adjust-
ing them to the specific aim. The main difference between a personal interview according to Article 14 APD and 
a Dublin personal interview is that the latter – given its more limited purpose - does not necessarily profit from 
a phase of free narrative. However, all the topics that are discussed during the interview should be introduced in 
a clear way to the applicant.

Interviewing techniques should be applied as follows:

Keep the questions short, simple and easy to understand

The level of language used and the way the case officer asks questions can lead to major misunderstandings and 
erroneous conclusions. The questions asked during the interview should be as simple as possible. Asking multiple 
questions at the same time should be avoided.

Use open questions

It is important that the applicant gives as much information as possible about an event or situation to the best of 
their knowledge if it is relevant for the determination of responsibility.

Use closed questions appropriately

The case officer should mainly rely on open questions and closed questions should be used to receive specific 
information. Since the Dublin interview is conducted in order to obtain specific information, the use of closed 
questions is also very important. However, the case officer should still be cautious not to give the impression to 
the applicant that they are only expected to answer to a series of closed questions, resembling a specific type of 
police interrogation. Open questions will help the applicant to understand that the interview is a place to express 
their own views.

Use clarifying and reflective questions

These questions are importanct when the case officer needs to elicit a verifiable description of the event from 
the applicant.

 
26 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

Ask questions in a correct and fair way.

Questions should be asked in a fair and non-suggestive way.

Ask questions bearing in mind the capability and educational level of the applicant.

The case officer should always first check the level of education or the capacity of the applicant to grasp certain 
notions in order to prevent a breakdown in communication due to the use of language which is either too basic or 
too difficult and complex.

Give an opportunity to clarify inconsistencies and contradictions

The case officer should give the applicant the opportunity to clarify potential discrepancies, contradictions and 
inconsistencies.

Opening the interview

Welcome/introduction

It is essential that the case officer greets the applicant professionally, introduces all persons taking part in the 
interview and explains their roles. Moreover, by explaining the role of each person present and each step and 
action in the process, the case officer could reduce any feelings of tension and anxiety.

Verifying understanding between the applicant and the interpreter

The case officer should ask the applicant if they understand the interpreter, and vice versa.

Informing the applicant of the purpose and content of the interview as well as about the 
Dublin procedure

It is important that the applicant understands the Dublin procedure as well as the next steps. Therefore, provid-
ing information is important. The case officer should explain the relevant information taking into account the 
level of understanding of the applicant. It is essential to give the relevant information at the opening of the inter-
view. The timely provision of relevant information gives the applicant an overview of the procedure.

It is particularly important to inform the applicant about:

the duration of the interview and possible outcomes.

• 
•  confidentiality.
• 

the purpose of the interview.
a.  Provision of information on the Dublin III Regulation.
b.  Determination of responsibility.

•  The written summary.
•  The further steps within the procedure.
•  Any other clarifications the applicant asks for regarding the Dublin procedure. In this context, it is im-
portant for Member States to tackle inaccurate or misleading information circulated amongst refugee 
communities including through the use of cultural mediators.

It is important that the case officer ensures that the applicant had understood the information provided, and 
gives additional information if necessary.

Duty to cooperate

The applicant is under obligation to cooperate with the authorities to establish their identity, age, background, 
including that of relevant relatives, identity, nationality(ies), country(ies) and place(s) of previous residence, previ-
ous asylum applications, travel routes, travel documents and the reasons for applying for international protec-
tion (Article 13 APD or other relevant national legislation). The applicant should be further informed about other 

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 27

obligations that may be imposed insofar as such obligations are necessary for the processing of the application in 
line with the national legislation (e.g. the obligation to report, handing over documents, etc.).

The case officer should explain why providing all relevant and correct information is beneficial in order to reach 
an appropriate decision. It is also important to signal that it is only if the applicant knowingly provides false infor-
mation that it may have negative consequences.

The case officer should also instruct the applicant that where they do not know the answer to a question they 
should say so and not try to provide an answer by guessing.

Content of the interview

In order to conduct an effective Dublin personal interview, the case officer should address all issues relevant to 
the implementation of the criteria of Dublin III Regulation. Interview techniques cannot be considered in isola-
tion without an understanding of what should be covered during the interview. The purpose of this section of 
the EASO Practical guide on the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation is to enable the case officer to gather 
accurate and reliable information about the potential implementation of Dublin III Regulation in the applicant’s 
individual case.

Two main categories of topics should be addressed:

•  Firstly, all the topics that are related to personal situation of the applicant and family ties.
•  Secondly, all the topics that are related to the applicant’s travel route.

Since the applicants’ statements are in many cases the only or the main evidence, a more detailed overview on 
how to cover these two topics during the interview can be found in the relevant part of chapter on Evidence 
Assessment below. These overviews present what issues may need to be explored during the interview, depend-
ing on the particular circumstances of the application, in order to gather the information necessary for determin-
ing the responsibility.

• 

• 

Issues that should be explored during the interview regarding family unity (go to Areas to explore during 
the interview: family links)
Issues that should be explored during the interview regarding residence, visa, irregular entry and stay, 
earlier asylum applications and cessation of responsibilities (see Areas to explore during the interview: 
entry, stay & previous application)

Closing the interview

The closing phase is mostly about making sure that all the information relevant to the case has been properly 
explored and that the applicant has received all the necessary information on the next steps before they leave 
the interview.

Ensure that the relevant facts have been covered during the interview

The case officer shall ensure that the applicant has been given an adequate opportunity to present all the rel-
evant elements.

Ask the applicant if there is any additional information they would like to provide

Asking the applicant if they have something to add gives them a sense that the case officer is treating them fairly 
and that they are listening. Even if the case officer is of the opinion that all relevant information has been gath-
ered they should remain open and flexible with regard to additional input.

Inform about the possibility to provide further supporting documents

The case officer shall inform the applicant about the opportunity to present all further information relevant to 
correctly determine the Member State responsible before a decision is taken to transfer them to the responsible 

 
28 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

Member State. Time limits for the submission of the documents or evidence should be communicated to the 
applicant.

Inform the applicant about the next steps of the process

In most cases it will not be possible to give an exact date for issuing a decision, but the case officer shall at least 
give an indicative timeframe within which this will happen. The applicant should be informed about how they will 
receive the information concerning the outcome of the process.

Inform the applicant about time limits set out in the Dublin III Regulation

Not knowing when the decision will be issued can cause stress for the applicant. In order to avoid such a situa-
tion, it might be useful to explain in general the deadlines mentioned in the regulation. Depending on the case, 
this could include: the latest point at which a take back/take charge request has to be made to the other Member 
State, and within which time-limit the requested Member State must answer the request, as well as the time limit 
for carrying out the transfer. In any case, they should be informed of the time-limit for lodging an appeal against 
the transfer decision once it is notified to them.

Inform the applicant about the written summary and how to access it

According to Article 5(6) Dublin III Regulation, the Member State conducting a personal interview shall make 
a written summary, which shall contain at least the main information supplied by the applicant during the 
interview. Summarising the core information provided by the applicant is an effective way to verify that the case 
officer has covered, in the written report or the standard form, all the topics needed to make the assessment. If 
the applicant has any concerns related to what has been said, they shall be given an opportunity to make com-
ments, to correct or provide clarifications.

Depending on the national system, the case officer may also be the right person to ensure that the applicant and/
or the legal advisor or other counsellor who is representing the applicant has timely access to the summary, as 
provided in Article 5(6).

Specific considerations regarding persons with special needs

Prior to determining responsibility based on the hierarchy of criteria in Chapter III as well as other provisions of 
the Dublin III Regulation (including humanitarian considerations, the cessation of responsibility and the transfer 
of responsibility due to expired time limits) the case officer should check whether specific considerations influ-
encing the determination of responsibility apply.

Special procedural needs according to Article 24 APD may influence the setup of the personal interview. For 
children, the Dublin III Regulation provides specific guarantees in Article 6. For unaccompanied children, Article 8 
Dublin III Regulation provides a specific criterion establishing the rules for the determination of responsibility for 
these cases.

Importance of identifying special needs

A vulnerable applicant is an applicant whose ability to understand and effectively present their case or fully 
participate in the process is limited due to their individual circumstances. The experiences of the applicant either 
in their home country, during the journey or in the country of asylum can have a strong influence on the vulner-
ability. For example, the language barrier or the feeling of social exclusion they experience can lead them into 
a situation of increased vulnerability.

In accordance with Article 22 RCD, Member States shall assess whether the applicant is a person with special 
reception needs. This obligation is also applicable for persons in Dublin procedures. According to Article 24 APD, 
Member States shall ensure that where applicants have been identified as applicants in need of special proce-
dural guarantees they are provided with adequate support in order to exercise their rights and comply with their 
obligations throughout the duration of the procedure.

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 29

It is worth noting that identifying a vulnerable applicant is relevant not only because of the initiation of proper 
referral mechanisms or conducting the interview in an appropriate manner, but the vulnerability may also have 
a direct impact on the responsibility determination process in the context of Article 16 and 17 Dublin III Regula-
tion as well as with regard to a potential violation of Article 4 Charter. This is discussed further under the section 
Evidence Assessment.

The identification of vulnerabilities is also relevant for the purposes of the exchange of health-related information 
during the Dublin transfer, as described in Article 32 Dublin III Regulation.

Case-law: Health conditions and the implementation of Dublin transfers

The CJEU ruled that even if there are no serious grounds for believing that there are systemic failures in the 
asylum procedure and the conditions for the reception of applicants for asylum, a transfer in itself could entail 
a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 Charter of fundamental rights of 
the European Union. This could notably be the case in circumstances where the transfer of an asylum seeker, 
with a particularly serious mental or physical condition, would result in a real and proven risk to the applicant’s 
health significantly and permanently deteriorating.

The authorities of a Member State must take into account objective factors, such as medical certificates, which 
are capable of demonstrating the particular seriousness of a person's illness and the significant and irremedia-
ble consequences that a transfer may entail for that person. It would then be for those authorities to eliminate 
any serious doubt as to the impact of the transfer on the health status of the person concerned, by ensuring 
that the asylum seeker is accompanied during the actual transfer by the appropriate medical staff who have 
the necessary equipment, resources and medicines, to prevent any aggravation of his health or any act of vio-
lence towards himself or third parties. Member States must also ensure that the asylum seeker receives care 
upon arrival in the responsible Member State.

If necessary, a Member State should suspend the execution of a transfer for as long as the applicant’s health 
condition does not render him capable of such a transfer. The requesting Member State may also choose to 
examine the application for international protection itself by making use of the 'discretionary clause' under 
Article 17(1) Dublin III. If the state of health of the asylum seeker does not allow the requesting Member State 
to transfer the applicant within a six-month period, the Member State responsible shall be relieved of its obli-
gations to take charge or to take back the person concerned and responsibility shall then be transferred to the 
requesting Member State in accordance with Article 29(2) Dublin III Regulation.

(CJEU judgement of 16 February 2017, C. K. and Others v Supreme Court of Republic Slovenia, C-578/16 PPU)

The most common categories of vulnerable persons are:

Accompanied and 
unaccompanied children

Disabled persons

Elderly persons

Pregnant women

Single parents with children

Victims of human  trafficking

Persons subjected to torture, 
rape or other serious forms 
of psychological, physical 
or sexual violence 

 
30 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

For identifying persons with special needs consult the EASO IPSN tool. The primary objective of the IPSN tool 
is to facilitate the timely identification of persons with special procedural and/or reception needs. It may be 
used at any stage of the asylum procedure and at any stage of the reception process. This is a practical support 
tool for officials involved in the asylum procedure and reception and does not presuppose expert knowledge 
in medicine, psychology or other subjects outside the asylum procedure. The tool serves to assist case officials 
with putting in place the necessary procedural guarantees.

Specific considerations: best interests of the child

Dublin III Regulation

Implementing Regulation

recital 13, Articles 6, 8 

Article 12

Interviewing children

Interviewing children requires a specific skill set and techniques. This specific situation is explained in more detail 
in the EASO Practical Guide on the best interests of the child in asylum procedures, published in 2019.

EASO training module on interviewing children

Specific skills and knowledge are required when interviewing children, since a child’s perception of the envi-
ronment and their memory and sense of time are considerably different from that of an adult. It is therefore 
crucial that case officers are fully aware of these differences when conducting a personal interview with 
a child. EASO has developed a training module on Interviewing Children. The objective of this module is to 
provide the participants with knowledge and skills in children’s developmental stages and in how to assess the 
information given by a child, as well as specific techniques for interviewing children.

Procedural guarantees - Assessing the best interests of the child

It is emphasised throughout the Dublin III Regulation that the best interest of the child is a primary considera-
tion in all procedures relating to minors when applying the regulation. Article 6(1) Dublin III Regulation especially 
highlights this. The consideration of principle of the best interests of the child in Article 6 Dublin III Regulation 
also includes the minors’ right to information and the right to be heard. Article 6(3) Dublin III Regulation as well as 
Article 12 Implementing Regulation set out the factors that need ‘in particular’ to be taken into account:

(a)  family reunification possibilities;
(b)  the minor’s wellbeing and social development;
(c)  safety and security considerations, in particular where there is a risk of having been a victim of, or of or 

potentially becoming a victim of human trafficking;

(d)  the views of the minor, in accordance with their age and maturity.

These factors may be decisive for the responsibility determination especially with a view to a potential viola-
tion of Article 4 Charter or Article 3 ECHR on the prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. In 
the ECtHR judgment of 4 November 2014, Tarakhel v Switzerland1 concerning an Afghan family with four minor 
children, the ECtHR stated that a transfer from Switzerland to Italy would not be lawful under Article 3 ECHR if the 
applicants were ‘to be returned to Italy without the Swiss authorities having first obtained individual guarantees 
from the Italian authorities that the applicants would be taken charge of in a manner adapted to the age of the 
children and that the family would be kept together’. In light of the Tarakhel case, it is clear that the best interests 
of the child needs to be considered for accompanied children as well as unaccompanied children. This is currently 
clearly reflected in Article 6(1) Dublin III Regulation.

1 

Judgment of the ECtHR of 4 November 2014, Tarakhel v Switzerland, no 29217/12.

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 31

Moreover, Article 6 Dublin III Regulation provides for several additional guarantees and actions to be taken for 
unaccompanied minors. These guarantees are set out in paragraphs (2) and (4) Article 6 which provide that:

•  Member States need to ensure that a representative represents and/or assists an unaccompanied minor 
in all procedures provided for in the Dublin III Regulation. The representative must have qualifications 
and expertise to ensure that the best interests of the minor is duly taken into consideration.

•  The  representative  ‘shall  have  access  to  the  content  of  the  relevant  documents  in  the  applicant’s  file 

including the specific leaflet for unaccompanied minors’.

•  The Member State with which the application is lodged, ‘shall as soon as possible take appropriate ac-
tion to identify the family members, siblings or relatives of the unaccompanied minor on the territory of 
Member States, whilst protecting the best interests of the child’.
It is required that all staff of the competent authorities dealing with requests concerning unaccompanied 
minors should have received and will continue to receive appropriate training concerning the specific 
needs of minors.

• 

The requirement for close cooperation between the Member States in the best interests assessment means that 
both the requesting and the requested Member State need to cooperate to effectively assess the best interests 
of the child, bringing together the knowledge at their disposal and, when necessary, also exchange relevant infor-
mation concerning the best interest assessment.

Article 12 Implementing Regulation provides in paragraph 3 that the representative shall be involved in the iden-
tification of family members to the greatest extent possible. Paragraph 4 specifies the exchange of information 
between Member States for establishing the Member State responsible for examining the application of an unac-
companied minor. In particular, when the Member State is in possession of information that makes it possible to 
start identifying and/or locating a member of the family, a sibling or a relative, that Member State shall consult 
other Member States, as appropriate, and exchange information, in order to:

• 

identify family members, siblings or relatives of the unaccompanied minor present on the territory of the 
Member States;

•  establish the existence of proven family links;
•  assess the capacity of a relative to take care of the unaccompanied minor, including where family mem-

bers, siblings or relatives of the unaccompanied minor stay in more than one Member State.

Member State national practices and procedures in assessing the child’s best interests may vary signifi-
cantly and it is not the purpose of this practical guide to tackle all aspects of best interest assessment in 
depth. It can be highlighted nonetheless that:

•  The best interest assessment must be done individually in each case taking into account the specific 
circumstances of the child concerned. The specific circumstances may include factors such as the child’s 
cultural background and experiences, age and maturity, gender and gender identity, level of education, 
and any possible vulnerability including (mental) health issues and trauma.

•  The best interest assessment is a general assessment of all relevant elements of the child’s best inter-

ests.

• 

• 

In practice, when assessing the best interests of the child in the context of applying the Dublin III Regu-
lation, it is especially important to gather information on the child’s specific circumstances, take into 
consideration the child’s potential family reunification possibilities (family or relatives in the Member 
States’ area), let the child present their own views to the authorities as well as to ensure the child’s 
safety and protection against all forms of violence and that their health and basic care are ensured. 
Guidance on age assessment can be found in the EASO Practical Guide on Age Assessment.

In addition, it is important that Member States seek and take into account the views of the child’s rep-
resentative in line with involving the representative in the responsibility determination process to the 
greatest extent possible. Also the opinion of other relevant national actors in childcare or child protec-
tion can be sought and taken into account in the best interests assessment when appropriate.

 
32 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

The EASO Practical guide on the best interests of the child in asylum procedures helps to identify and highlight the 
key milestones and flashpoints for the implementation of the best interests of the child. This is done in order to 
support the Member States in applying the best interests’ principle and enhancing the guarantees within asylum 
procedures for children.

Determining the responsible Member State in case of unaccompanied children: 
Article 8 Dublin III Regulation

Article 8 sets out three basic principles for the responsibility determination for unaccompanied children.

•  The principle of the child’s best interest being a primary consideration is emphasised in the wording 
of all paragraphs of the article. The application of one of these article paragraphs is exercised upon the 
conditions that it is in the child’s best interests.

•  The principle of reuniting a minor child with their family, sibling or relative legally present in the Mem-

ber State area is outlined as a primary criterion determining responsibility.

•  The principle that in situations where the minor child has no family or relatives present in the Member 
States, it is of primary importance to guarantee the child has quick access to a procedure for granting 
international protection and as a rule, the child should not be transferred. Therefore, when there is no 
family or relatives in the Member States, the responsible Member State is normally the one where the 
child is present and has applied for international protection. This follows from CJEU judgment of 6 June 
2013 in case MA and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department2 which, provided it is in the 
best interests of the minor, sets out that:

… where an unaccompanied minor with no member of his family legally present in the territory of 
a  Member State has lodged asylum applications in more than one Member State, the Member State in 
which that minor is present after having lodged an asylum application there is to be designated the ‘Mem-
ber State responsible’.

Consequently, the best interests of the child still needs to be assessed. This assessment is a condition under 
Article 8(4): if it is not in the best interests of the minor to stay in the Member State where they are present, the 
Member State where it is in the best interests of the minor to return to should be the responsible Member State.

2 

Judgment of the CJEU of 6 June 2013, MA and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department, C-648/11.

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 33

4. Evidence assessment [back to checklist]

Dublin III Regulation

Implementing Regulation

Article 20(1), Article 22(2) to (5)

Annex II

Introduction

Once all relevant information is compiled, the process of evidence assessment begins in order to determine 
responsibility. The Dublin personal interview is an important source of information hence the reason it is closely 
linked to evidence assessment. The very purpose of the Dublin personal interview is to gather accurate and relia-
ble information about the potential implementation of the Dublin III Regulation in the applicant’s individual case. 
The relevant issues to be covered in the interview mainly relate to the criteria for determining the responsible 
Member State (Chapter III Dublin III Regulation), the provisions related to dependent persons and discretionary 
clauses (Chapter IV Dublin III Regulation), the travel route, previous application(s), as well as to the cessation of 
responsibility (Chapter V Dublin III Regulation) as set out below. The case officer should address all issues relevant 
to the assessment of the criteria of the Dublin III Regulation.

The information gathered during the interview and from databases (e.g. personal documents, Eurodac, VIS), and 
any information provided by the applicant or other relevant sources (e.g. family members, NGOs, etc.) need to be 
assessed.

The importance of evidence assessment

The European Commission described the importance of evidence assessment in its 2001 proposal for the Dublin 
II Regulation as follows:

‘The mechanism for determining which Member State is responsible will not function unless the Member States 
set up a system of fair co-operation with a view to collecting the necessary evidence, processing applications 
within the agreed time limits and organising transfers in the best conditions.’ (COM(2001) 447, 7)

The use of evidence is vital to the Dublin procedure upon establishing the Member State responsible for the 
application for international protection.

A case officer may be asked to assess evidence at any point during the entire procedure but in particular, in two 
situations:

•  Before sending a request to another Member State to take charge or take back an applicant for interna-
tional protection (as set out for cases of submitting a take charge request (Article 21(3)) and a take back 
request (Article 23(3) and 24(5) Dublin III Regulation); and

•  Before replying to such a request (replying to take charge request (Article 22(2) - (5) and replying to take 

back request (Article 25(1) of the Dublin III Regulation).

The way evidence assessment is carried out differs depending on the relevant criteria for taking back or taking 
charge being used.

Dublin indications

The Dublin procedure shall start pursuant to Article 20(1) Dublin III Regulation ‘as soon as an application for 
international protection is first lodged with a Member State’. When submitting a request for taking back or taking 
charge, Member States have to use the standard forms provided by the Implementing Regulation, and they have 
to include proof or circumstantial evidence in the request. The two lists ‘proof’ and ‘circumstantial evidence’ are 
defined by Article 22(3) Dublin III Regulation. The Commission is asked by this provision to ‘establish, and review 
periodically, two lists, indicating the relevant elements of proof and circumstantial evidence’. Annex II Implement-
ing Regulation contains these two lists which both state per relevant Article the means of proof that may be used.

 
34 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

Annex II of the Implementing Regulation:

Means of proof  
(Annex II list A)

Circumstantial evidence  
(Annex II list B)

Means of proof

Proof refers to probative evidence ‘which determines responsibility pursuant to this Regulation as long as it is not 
refuted by proof to the contrary’ (Article 22(3)(a)(i)).

  Proof indicates that another Member State is responsible.

Article 22(4) states in this regard: ‘The requirement of proof should not exceed what is necessary for the proper 
application of this Regulation.’

Circumstantial evidence

Circumstantial evidence ‘refers to indicative elements, which while being refutable may be sufficient, in certain 
cases, according to the evidentiary value attributed to them’. Their evidentiary value shall be assessed on a case-
by-case basis.

  Circumstantial evidence may lead to the assessment that another Member State is responsible.

Article 22(5) contains a provision for the use of circumstantial evidence: ‘If there is no formal proof, the requested 
Member State shall acknowledge its responsibility if the circumstantial evidence is coherent, verifiable and suf-
ficiently detailed to establish responsibility.’

Insufficient Dublin indications

Often there is no proof for the responsibility of a given Member State, which then makes the assessment of any 
existing circumstantial evidence necessary to effectively determine the Member State responsible. When there is 
no proof like Eurodac or VIS data regarding the applicant, in most cases, the asylum seeker is the main source of 
information to determine the responsible Member State.

Information requests

Dublin III Regulation

Implementing Regulation

Article 34

Annex V

Very often, the Dublin indications in a case are insufficient. If the proof or circumstantial evidence is not sufficient 
to determine the responsibility or even to ascertain whether or not the Dublin III Regulation is to be applied, 
the Member State carrying out the Dublin procedure might ask another Member State for further information 
relevant to the determination of responsibility pursuant to Article 34 Dublin III Regulation using the standard 
form of Annex V in the Implementing Regulation. More specific requests can be sent, especially if the requested 
information concerns family ties and questions of dependency. For this purpose, Member States are provided 
with the standard forms in Annex VII and VIII Implementing Regulation. The information provided by the respond-
ing Member State is proof, and therefore constitutes evidentiary value.

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 35

Carrying out evidence assessment

Principles of assessing proof in the Dublin procedure

The Dublin procedure is an objective process to determine the responsible Member State. The evidence assess-
ment in Dublin procedure is very different from evidence assessment in the substantial asylum procedure. How-
ever, the standard of proof required does not necessarily change.

Also, if potential violation of Article 4 Charter is to be assessed, the standards for the evidence assessment are 
more similar to the examination of a barrier to removal in a substantive asylum procedure.

The process of determining responsibility is a joint procedure between the two Member States involved. Coop-
eration between Member States is important in conducting evidence assessment in order to rapidly determine 
the responsible Member State, by respecting the time limits set out in the regulation.

Using proof to assess responsibility

Once the relevant information has been collected during the registration phase, in the personal interview with 
the applicant and/or through exchange of information with other Member States, the case officer will proceed 
with the evidence assessment in order to determine the Member State responsible for examining the application 
for international protection. Evidence assessment is carried out on a case-by-case basis by the case officer who 
has to take into account the nature and weight of every piece of proof and/or circumstantial evidence.

As described previously, when sending a take charge or take back request, the requesting Member State has to 
provide proof and/or circumstantial evidence. It has to take into account the evidence produced by the applicant.

The requesting Member State is obliged to hand over a copy of all available proof and circumstantial evidence 
showing that the requested Member State is responsible. The content of the request shall enable the requested 
Member State to assess its responsibility. In case of take charge request, this requirement is set out in Article 21 
(3) Dublin III Regulation and Article 1 Implementing Regulation. In case of take back request, this requirement is 
set out in Article 23(3) and 24(3) and in Article 2 Implementing Regulation.

In case the requested Member State’s responsibility has ceased in accordance with Article 19(2) and (3) or 20(5), 
it needs to establish that it is no longer responsible.

Since one of the main objectives of the Dublin III Regulation is to guarantee effective access to one asylum appli-
cation procedure, Member States should endeavour to rapidly determine the one Member State responsible, 
based on the available proof.

Good practice on cooperation between Member States

The presence of liaison officers in other Member States is regarded a good practice. Liaison officers could 
assist in enhancing common understanding and speeding up procedures, particularly for specific cases in need 
of special attention, such as those regarding children, or at times of particular pressure on a Member State.

General remarks on assessing documents

Documents constitute an important part of the evidence. In some cases, the applicant has documents with them. 
The process of evaluating the relevance of documents for the assessment of responsibility requires mutual trust 
and cooperation between the Member States.

 
36 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

When conducting the assessment, the case officer may look at the:

 ► Nature of the document(s)

•  This refers to the form of a document: original, or copy, or an extract.

 ► Genuineness of the document(s)

•  The assessment of whether a document is genuine or counterfeit is crucial to the determination of 
responsibility of a Member State. An authenticity report regarding documents is not a prerequisite 
in the Implementing Regulation. For a variety of documents those checks may not be feasible (e.g. 
birth certificate, marriage certificates).

 ► Validity of the document(s)

•  Expired documents are also relevant for determination of a responsible Member State (e.g. resi-
dence document up to two years after its expiration at the time of the application, visa up to six 
months after its expiration)

 ► Origin

•  Authority issuing a document.

 ► Person concerned

•  Whether the document belongs to the applicant.

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 37

Criteria related to family unity [back to checklist]

Dublin III Regulation

Implementing Regulation

Article 2(g) to (j), Articles 8 to 
11, Articles 16 to 17 

Articles 11- 12 

Relevant definitions and considerations

According to recital 14, 15, 16, 17 as well as Chapter III and IV Dublin III Regulation, family unity is a primary con-
sideration that the case officer has to take into account. Moreover, the case officer should also be aware that the 
various provisions in Chapter III are to be applied in a hierarchical order.

Specific considerations regarding family members, relatives

The case officers should have in mind the difference between family members and relatives and any other family 
relation when applying the different provisions regarding family unity under the Dublin III Regulation. It might be 
necessary to explain the differences to the applicant during the Dublin personal interview.
 ► Family members

Pursuant to Article 2(g) Dublin III Regulation, family members present on the territory of the Member 
States ‘insofar as the family already existed in the country of origin’, constitute the following:
 ▪
 ▪

the spouse of the applicant or the unmarried partner in a stable relationship;
biological or adopted minor children of couples of the kind referred to in the first bullet point, or of 
the applicant, on the condition that the children are unmarried;
 ▪ mother, father or another adult responsible for an unmarried minor.

 ► Relative

Defined in Article 2(h) Dublin III Regulation where the applicant is an unaccompanied child as the appli-
cant’s adult aunt or uncle or grandparent who is present in the territory of a Member State, regardless of 
whether the applicant was born in or out of wedlock or adopted as defined under national law.

 ► Minor

Defined in Article 2(i), and it means a third-country national or a stateless person below the age of 18 
years.

 ► Unaccompanied minor

Defined by Article 2(j) Dublin III Regulation as ‘a minor who arrives on the territory of the Member States 
unaccompanied by an adult responsible for him or her, whether by law or by the practice of the Mem-
ber State concerned, and for as long as he or she is not effectively taken into the care of such an adult; it 
includes a minor who is left unaccompanied after he or she has entered the territory of Member States’.

In the context of Articles 16 and 17(2), wider family relations are also relevant for the determination of 
responsibility.

•  Relation of dependency

In particular, Article 16 of the Dublin III Regulation refers to (adult) child, sibling, parent when there is 
a relation of dependency.
•  Family in a broader sense

Article 17(2) refers to any other family relation in a broader sense.

Unaccompanied minors (Article 8)

Article 8 concerns unaccompanied minors and states that the Member State responsible should be the one 
where the minor has a family member or a sibling who is legally present. Where the minor has a relative, it should 
be established that this relative can take care of them. The capacity of taking care of the child should be estab-
lished based on an individual examination. If the applicant is a married minor whose spouse is not legally present 
on the territory of the Member State, the Member State responsible shall be the Member State where the father, 

 
38 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

mother or adult responsible for the minor, whether by law or by practice, or sibling, is legally present. However, 
the case officer must determine that it is in the best interests of the child to be reunited with the family member, 
sibling or relative.

Family member who is beneficiary of international protection (Article 9)

Article 9 states that the Member State responsible should be the one where the applicant has a family member 
who has been allowed to reside in the country as a beneficiary of international protection. It should be noted that 
in this case it is not required that the family was previously formed in the country of origin. However, it has to 
have been formed before the applicant lodged his first application (Article 7(2)).

Both the applicant and the family member should have expressed their consent in writing.

Family member who is applicant for international protection (Article 10)

Article 10 states that the Member State responsible should be the one where the applicant has a family member 
who is an applicant for international protection.

Both the applicant and the family member should have expressed their consent in writing.

Rules for simultaneous applications (Article 11)

Article 11 provides for rules in cases where several family members ‘and/or minor unmarried siblings submit 
applications for international protection in the same Member State simultaneously, or on dates close enough for 
the procedures for determining the Member State responsible to be conducted together’, and the application of 
the Dublin procedure would result in the separation of the family members. In these cases, the responsible Mem-
ber State should be the one that is responsible for taking charge of the largest number of family members. Failing 
this, the Member State responsible is the Member State for which the criteria indicates that it is responsible for 
examining the application of the oldest of them.

Dependent persons (Article 16)

Article 16 provides that ‘on account of pregnancy, a new born child, serious illness, severe disability or old age, an 
applicant is dependent of the assistance of his or her child, sibling or parent legally resident in one of the Member 
State or his or her child, sibling or parent legally resident in one of the Member States is dependent on the assis-
tance of the applicant, Member States shall normally keep or bring together the applicant with that child, sibling 
or parent provided that’:

• 
• 
• 

the family ties existed in the country of origin;
the child, sibling or parent is able to take care of the dependent person;
they expressed their consent in writing.

When sending a take charge request, the case officer has to elaborate the following points:

•  reasons for dependency;
•  nature of the relationship between the dependent persons;
• 

the capacity of the person to take care of the dependent person.

Discretionary clauses (Article 17)

Under Article 17 Dublin III Regulation (the ‘discretionary clauses’) family members can also be kept or brought 
together, where family relations fall outside the scope of the family criteria leading to family separation. This, 
however, is up to the full discretion of the Member State(s) involved.

Under the discretionary clauses, the situation is to some extent more complicated regarding the evidence assess-
ment. Their application might also be subject to additional national guidance. The use of the discretionary clauses 
may, in particular, be envisaged if different Member States are responsible under the criteria of the Dublin III 
Regulation.

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 39

Case-law: the use of the discretionary clauses

The CJEU has repeatedly ruled on how Article 17(1) Dublin III Regulation should be interpreted. Two cases 
before the CJEU illustrate the possible realm within which the possibility of applying Article 17 Dublin III Regu-
lation may arise.

In the first case cited here, the CJEU determined that Member States cannot be obliged to apply Article 17 
Dublin III Regulation, see Judgment of the CJEU of 16 February 2017, C.K. and Others v Republika Slovenija, 
C-578/16, par. 97.

In this specific case, it was claimed before the Slovenian Constitutional Court that the transfer of applicant 
‘C.K.’ from Slovenia to Croatia would adversely affect her state of health and that she therefore should not be 
transferred. This claim was supported by several medical opinions. According to the Slovenian Constitutional 
Court, Member States are required to apply the discretionary clause of in Article 17(1) Dublin III Regulation 
in case the transfer of an applicant to another Member State would result in an infringement of Article 33(1) 
of the Geneva Convention, Article 3 of the ECHR and the relevant case-law of the European Court of Human 
Rights.

The CJEU ruled that the interpretation of Article 17(1) Dublin III Regulation is primarily a task that belongs to 
the CJEU itself. It furthermore ruled that Member States can not be required, at least not in the case as pre-
sented above, to apply Article 17(1) Dublin III Regulation.

In the second case cited here, the Court determined that the application of Article 17 Dublin III Regulation is 
not subject to any particular condition and that no remedy has to be available against the decision not to apply 
said Article, see Judgment of the CJEU of 23 January 2019, M.A. and Others v The International Protection 
Appeals Tribunal and Others , C-661/17, par. 71 and 79.

In this specific case, two applicants brought medical problems affecting one of them, and an ongoing medical 
assessment of their child, to the attention of the Refugee Applications Commissioner in Ireland. Said Com-
misisoner nevertheless recommended their transfer from Ireland to the United Kingdom on the basis of the 
Dublin III Regulation, simultaneously finding that there was no reason to apply Article 17 Dublin III Regulation. 
This decision was challenged, citing, inter alia, Article 17 Dublin III Regulation, stating that a transfer to the 
United Kingdom would result in a issue with the protection of the fundamental rights of the applicants since 
the United Kingdom proposed its withdrawal from the European Union. Since the Court upheld the chal-
lenged decision, the case was brought before the Irish High Court. The Irish High Court subsequently asked 
the CJEU whether the refusal to apply Article 17 Dublin III Regulation, such as the Commissioner did, could be 
challenged.

The CJEU ruled that Article 17(1) Dublin III Regulation can not be subject to any particular condition, including 
the intention of a Member State to withdraw from the European Union. The CJEU moreover ruled that Article 
27(1) Dublin III Regulation does not require a remedy to be available against the decision not to use the discre-
tionary clause of Article 17(1) Dublin III Regulation, and that this decision may be challenged with the appeal 
against a transfer decision.

Article 17(1), the sovereignty clause

Article 17(1) (the ‘sovereignty clause’) states that the Member State in which an application for international pro-
tection is lodged and that is carrying out the process of determining the Member State responsible, may decide 
to examine an application for international protection itself even when it is not responsible under the Regulation.

This Article can be triggered at any time by the Member State if an application for international protection was 
lodged with it. The Member State in question has to indicate it in Eurodac by adding the date when the decision 
to examine the application was taken.

Article 17(2), the humanitarian clause

According to Article 17(2), the Member State in which the application for international protection was lodged, or 
the Member State responsible, ‘may, at any time before a first decision regarding the substance is taken, request 
another Member State to take charge of an applicant in order to bring together any family relations, on humani-
tarian grounds based in particular on family or cultural considerations, even where that other Member State is 
not responsible under the criteria laid down in Articles 8 to 11 and 16’. The persons involved must express their 
consent in writing.

 
40 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

The acceptance of a request under Article 17(2) remains at the discretion of the requested Member State. If the 
requested Member State decides to examine the application for international protection, it has to give accept-
ance in writing to the requesting Member State.

In order to process this type of case, the case officer may include, inter alia, elements with regard to:

•  reasons for reunification;
•  medical documents, medical reports or psychological assessments;
•  reports  from  NGOs  detailing  the  family  links  with  the  person  in  the  another  Member  State,  including 

documents confirming these relations;

•  Nature of the relationship (how were they separated, whether they kept in contact, were these persons 

living together) with particular consideration given to familial or cultural aspects.

Both the applicant and the family member or the person concerned staying in the other Member State have to 
express their consent in writing.

Means of proof and circumstantial evidence

Dublin III Regulation

Implementing Regulation 

Articles 8 to 10 

Annex II

Unaccompanied child and family members (Articles 8 to 10)

In cases of Articles 8 - 10, the following elements have to be established:

• 
• 
• 
• 

the family link;
the legal status of the family member(s), sibling(s) or the relative(s);
the capacity of the relative or adult responsible for the child to take care of the child;
in case of Article 9 and 10, the consent to be reunited expressed by both the applicant and the family 
member.

Dependent (adult) child, sibling, parent (Article 16)

In order to assess the dependency between the applicant and their adult child, parent or sibling, where either the 
applicant or the family relation is pregnant or recently gave birth, is elderly, seriously ill or has a severe disability, 
the following elements need to be established:

• 
• 
• 
• 

the resident status of the family relation;
the family link;
the vulnerability (pregnancy, new born child, old age, serious illness or severe disability);
the capacity of the person concerned to take care of the dependent person.

Given the fact that the applicant and the family relation are separated, the applicant/family relation does not 
have to be de facto dependent on each other at the moment of the assessment. What needs to be assessed is 
whether the person is a dependent person on the account of being pregnant, having a new born child, old age, 
serious illness or severe disability on the one hand, and whether the applicant or family relation has the capacity 
to take care of the dependent person on the other hand. The fact that the applicant/family relation has already 
taken care of the family relation in the past can be an indication that the capacity is present. Flexibility shall be 
shown when Article 16 is applied.

Evidentiary requirements for establishing family links should be reasonable to ensure that Articles 8, 9, 10 and 
the dependency clause (Article 16) guarantee family unity in practice. All available information and evidence, 
including the applicants’ statements, should be given due consideration to ensure a correct determination of 
responsibility.

Annex II of the Implementing Regulation contains the following list of means of proof and circumstantial evidence 
in case of family Articles 8-10.

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 41

Means of proof in case of Articles 8, 9, 10

Presence of a family member 
of an applicant  
who is an unaccompanied minor   
(Article 8)

Legal residence in a Member 
State of a family member who 
is a beneficiary of international 
protection   
(Article 9)

Written confirmation of 
the information by the 
other Member State

Extracts from registers

Residence permits issued 
to the family member

Evidence that the persons 
are related, if available

DNA or blood test (only 
if failing the above 
and if necessary)

Written confirmation of 
the information by the 
other Member State

Extracts from registers

Residence permits issued 
to the family member 
who is a beficiary of 
international protection

Evidence that the persons 
are related, if available

Consent of the persons 
concerned

Presence of a family member 
who is an applicant and whose 
application has not yet been 
the subject of a first decision 
regarding the substance   
(Article 10)

Written confirmation of 
the information by the 
other Member State

Temporary residence 
authorisations issued to the 
family member while the 
application is being examined

Extracts from registers

Evidence that the persons 
are related, if available

DNA or blood test (only 
if failing the above 
and if necessary)

Consent of the persons 
concerned

Written confirmation of the information by the other Member State

Any written confirmation regarding the presence of the family member, sibling or relative of the unaccompanied 
child or family member of an applicant, whether provided through the standard forms for exchange of informa-
tion of the Implementing Regulation, or by other means are probative means of evidence supporting the take 
charge request on the relevant legal grounds.

Extracts from registers

The legal residence (in case of Article 9) and the presence of the family member (in case of Articles 8 and 10) can 
also be supported by extracts from registers confirming the status of the residence of the family member.

Residence permits/temporary residence authorisations issued to the family member

The presence of the family member can also be supported by the residence permit or authorisation issued to the 
family member concerned.

Evidence that the persons are related

Any evidence supporting the relation of the persons concerned should be sent to the requested Member State if 
such evidence is available, for example, marriage or birth certificate, or any kind of documentary evidence prov-
ing the kinship.

 
42 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

DNA or blood test

The use of DNA and or blood test to support the existence of family links should be exceptional. The wording of 
the Implementing Regulation makes it clear that DNA or blood tests are only to be used when other evidence is 
not available.

Consent of the persons concerned

In order that the reunification takes place with the agreement of the persons concerned, the applicant and the 
family member should express their consent in writing. This should be attached to the request.

Circumstantial evidence in case of Articles 8, 9, 10

Presence of a family member 
of an applicant who is an 
unaccompanied minor (Article 8)

Legal residence in a Member 
State of a family member who 
is a beneficiary of international 
protection (Article 9)

Verifiable information 
from the applicant

Reports/confirmation of 
the information by an 
international organisation, 
such as UNHCR

Statements by the family 
member concerned

Verifiable information 
from the applicant

Reports/confirmation of 
the information by an 
international organisation, 
such as UNHCR

Presence of a family member 
who is an applicant and 
whose application has not 
yet been the subject of a 
first decision regarding the 
substance (Article 10)

Verifiable information 
from the applicant

Reports/confirmation of 
the information by an 
international organisation, 
such as UNHCR

Verifiable information from the applicant

The information provided by the applicant concerning, such as, the presence of a family member in a Member 
State, is a circumstantial evidence. The more detailed the information the better supported the request . The 
information provided by the applicant can also constitute a basis to request information from the other Member 
State and ask for confirmation. In some instances, the applicants may not be able to provide documentary evi-
dence to prove the family link with the family members or relatives. Detailed information about the other family 
member(s), where they live, circumstances of separation, details about marriage, etc., all consist of informa-
tion that can be verified by the other Member State by checking the registration or the interview of the family 
member(s) in its territory. (For topics to be elaborated during the interview for the sake of collecting relevant 
information, see the Areas to explore during the interview: family links)

Statements by the family members concerned

Coherent, verifiable and sufficiently detailed statements provided by the family member can also support 
requests made on the grounds of family relations.

Reports/confirmation of the information by an international organisation, such as UNHCR

The Member States can use the information provided by international organisations to support their requests. 
Reports or confirmation of the information by an international organisation can further support the request. The 
requested Member State shall take these documents into account and conduct the relevant verification/research.

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 43

Criteria related to residence, entry and stay [back to checklist]

Dublin III Regulation

Implementing Regulation

Articles 12 to 14 

Annex II

Relevant definitions and considerations

Following the criteria related to children and family relations, the next set of criteria of the determination of 
responsibility is related to entry and stay, taking into account how the person concerned entered or stayed in the 
territory of the Member States, the legal basis of that entry or stay, the period of time that elapsed since entry, as 
well as the place of application for international protection.

The Dublin III Regulation first sets out procedural rules for entry and stay when it is based on a visa or residence 
document issued by a Member State (Article 12). For Schengen States, requests based on an issued visa represent 
a significant share of Dublin cases.

The main source of information about an issued visa is from the VIS database. VIS connects embassies and 
consulates in non-EU countries and all external border-crossing points of Schengen States. The system performs 
biometric matching, primarily of fingerprints, for identification and verification purposes. Not all Member States 
applying the Dublin III Regulation are bound by the VIS Regulation.

In case the VIS system is not accessible or the indicators related to visa or residence permit are not (fully) con-
firmed, Member States can send information requests in accordance with Article 34 Dublin III Regulation to 
facilitate the responsibility determination procedure.

Residence document

Valid residence document (Article 12(1))

‘Where the applicant is in possession of a valid residence document, the Member State which issued the docu-
ment shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection.’

In most cases, the first sign of an applicant being granted a residence document in a Member State is their state-
ment and/or the presence of a document itself. In cases where the applicant has the document with them, the 
authenticity and validity of the residence document in question needs to be checked in detail.

Multiple residence documents (Article 12(3))

Article 12(3) sets out rules on the responsibility in case the applicant is in possession of several valid residence 
documents issued by several Member States.

Article 12(3)(a) specifies that the Member State issuing the residence document with the longest period of resi-
dency or with the longest expiry date shall be responsible.

Expired residence documents (Article 12(4))

Article 12(4) shall be applied in cases where the applicant is in possession of one or more expired residence 
documents, taking into account how long ago the residency document expired. In case the residence docu-
ment expired more than two years previously, the Member State where the application was lodged shall be 
responsible.

 
44 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

Visa (Article 12(2), (3), (4))

Valid visa (Article 12(2))

Article 12(2) provides that ‘Where the applicant is in possession of a valid visa, the Member State which issued 
the visa shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection.’

In case the visa was issued on behalf of another Member State, the represented Member State shall be responsi-
ble for examining the application for international protection.

Multiple visa (Article 12(3))

Article 12(3) sets out rules on the responsibility in cases where the applicant is in possession of several visas 
issued by different Member States, taking into account the period of validity of the document.

Article 12(3)(b) renders the responsibility to the Member State issuing the visa with the latest expiry date in case 
of the various visas of the same kind.

Article 12(3)(c) sets out that in cases where the visas are of different types, ‘the Member State which issued the 
visa having the longest period of validity or, where the periods of validity are identical, the Member State which 
issued the visa having the latest expiry date’ should assume the responsibility.

Expired visa (Article 12(4))

Article 12(4) shall be applied in cases where the applicant is in possession of one or more expired visas, taking 
into account how long ago the visa expired, and which visa enabled the applicant to actually enter the territory 
of the Member State. In cases where the visa expired more than six months previously, the Member State where 
the application was lodged shall be responsible.

Irregular entry (Article 13(1))

‘Where the applicant has irregularly crossed border into a Member State by land, sea or air having come from 
a third country, the Member State thus entered shall be responsible for examining the application for international 
protection.’

The responsibility based on irregular entry ceases 12 months after the irregular entry took place if no application 
for international protection was lodged in any Member State during this period.

Continuous stay in a Member State for at least five months (Article 13(2))

‘When a Member State cannot or can no longer be held responsible’ in accordance with the irregular entry cri-
teria and ‘where it is established by proof or circumstantial evidence …, that the applicant […] has been living for 
a continuous period of at least five months in a Member State before lodging the application for international 
protection, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection’.

This article is applicable even in cases where the circumstances of entry cannot be established.

If evidence suggests that the applicant has been living for at least five months in several Member States, the 
responsible Member State is the one where the applicant stayed most recently.

Visa waived (legal) entry (Article 14)

Schengen States have a common visa policy to facilitate the entry of legal visitors into the EU by respecting 
internal security. The EU has a list of countries whose citizens should be in possession of a visa when crossing the 
external borders and a list of countries whose citizens are exempt from that requirement3. Visa free access may 
also be a result of bilateral negotiations, especially between border countries.

3  At the time of writing, this list is set out in Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 
listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing external borders and those whose nationals are 
exempt from that requirement, OL J 303/39. Given that this list is updated often, the reader should consult the currently applicable Regulation.

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 45

Article 14(1) stipulates that ‘[i]f a third-country national or a stateless person enters into the territory of a Mem-
ber state in which the need for him/her to have a visa is waived, that Member State shall be responsible for 
examining his/her application for international protection.’

Article 14(2) sets out rules for a situation where the applicant could have legally entered several Member States 
because the requirement to have a visa is waived in these Member States. In case the ‘third-country national or 
the stateless person lodges his or her application for international protection in another Member State in which 
the need for him or her to have a visa for entry into the territory is also waived’, that other Member State shall be 
responsible for examining the application for international protection.

Application in an international transit area of an airport (Article 15)

An application for international protection can also by lodged in an international transit area of an airport. ‘Where the 
application for international protection is made in the international transit area of an airport of a Member State by 
a third-country national or a stateless person, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application.’

Means of proof in cases of a valid or expired residence document or visa 
(Article 12)

 Valid residence documents (Article 12(1) and (3) 
or residence documents which expired less than 
2 years previously [and date of entry into force]

Valid visas (Article 12(2) and (3)) and 
visas which expired less than 6 months 
previously [and date of entry into force] 

Residence document issued

Extracts from register of aliens or similar registers

VIS hit

Visa issued

Reports/confirmation from the Member 
State that issued the  residence document

Extracts from register of aliens or similar registers

Reports/confirmation from the Member State 
that issued the visa or residence document

Residence document

Article 2(l) of the Dublin III Regulation defines the scope of residence document:

… any authorisation issued by the authorities of a Member State authorising a third-country national or a state-
less person to stay on its territory, including the documents substantiating the authorisation to remain on the 
territory under temporary protection arrangements or until the circumstances preventing a removal order from 
being carried out no longer apply with the exception of visas and residence authorisations issued during the 
period required to determine the Member State responsible as established in this Regulation or during the exami-
nation of an application for international protection or an application for a residence permit.

The residence document is a probative means of evidence to support a take charge request related to entry with 
this issued document.

Visa

Article 2(m) defines the scope and types of visa. A visa is ‘the authorisation or decision of a Member State 
required for transit or entry for an intended stay in that Member State or in several Member States.’ Long-stay 
visa enables the holder for a stay of more than three months in the Member State which issued it or on whose 
behalf the visa was issued. Short stay visa enables the holder to stay on the territory of one or all the Member 
States for a duration of not more than 90 days ‘in any six-month period beginning on the date of first entry on 
the territory of the Member States’. The airport transit visa enables the person to transit through the interna-
tional transit areas of one or more airports of the Member States.

 
46 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

VIS hit

The positive match (hit) transmitted by the VIS in accordance with Article 21 Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 (VIS 
Regulation) proves that the person was issued a visa by another Member State. The VIS hit is a probative means 
of evidence, which should be attached to the take charge request.

Extracts from register of aliens or similar registers

Any official documents, such as extracts from registers, files, revealing information about irregular or legal entry, 
or stay in another Member State, or official documents that support the statements of the applicant should be 
used to support the take charge request.

Reports/confirmation of the information by the Member State which issued the residence 
document or visa

Confirmation from the Member State which issued the visa or residence document is probative means of evi-
dence. In cases where the Member State does not have access to VIS, an information request can be sent to the 
other Member State to confirm the issuance of the document. In case the other Member State confirms that it 
issued a visa/residence document, this confirmation can be used as proof to support the take charge request.

Circumstantial evidence in case of valid or expired residence document or visa 
(Article 12)

Valid residence documents (Article 12(1) and (3)) 
or residence documents which expired less than 
2 years previously [and date of entry into force]

Valid visas (Article 12(2) and (3)) and visas 
which expired less than 6 months previously 
[and date of entry into force] (Article 12(4))

Detailed and verifiable statements 
by the applicant

Detailed and verifiable statements 
by the applicant

Reports/confirmation of the information by an 
international organisation, such as UNHCR;

Reports/confirmation of the information by an 
international organisation, such as UNHCR;

Reports/confirmation of the information 
by the Member State which did not 
issue the residence permit;

Reports/confirmation of the information 
by the Member State which did not 
issue the residence permit

Reports/confirmation of the information by 
family members, travelling companions

Reports/confirmation of the information by 
family members, travelling companions

Detailed, verifiable statements of the applicant

In some instances, the applicants may not be able to provide documentary evidence to prove the entry or 
residence in another Member State. Detailed and verifiable statements concerning the circumstances of entry 
or residence that can be verified by the other Member State by checking the registration could serve as circum-
stantial evidence. For topics to be elaborated during the interview for the sake of collecting relevant information 
concerning travel route, see Areas to explore during the interview: entry, stay & previous application.

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 47

Reports/confirmation of the information by the Member State which did not issue 
the residence permit

In case the requested Member State confirms that it did not issue the visa or residence permit, this information 
is a circumstantial evidence. Depending on the content of the information, there might be indications of the 
responsibility of another Member State.

Reports/confirmation of the information by an international organisation, such as UNHCR

The Member States can use the information provided by international organisations to support their take charge 
or take back requests. Reports or confirmation of the information by an international organisation can further 
support the request. The requested Member State shall take these documents into account and conduct the rel-
evant verification/research.

Reports/confirmation of the information by family members, travelling companions

Coherent, verifiable and sufficiently detailed statements regarding the applicant’s travel route can also support 
requests, and can support the applicant’s statements.

Means of proof in case of visa waived (Article 14) and irregular entry 
(Article 13(1))

Illegal entry at an external frontier  
(Article 13(1)) 

Legal entry into the territory at an 
external frontier (Article 14)

Entry stamp or similar endorsement in a passport

Entry stamp or similar 
endorsement in a passport

Exit stamp from a country borderting 
on a Member State, bearing in mind 
the route taken by the applicant and 
the date the frontier was crossed

Tickets conclusively establishing 
entry at an external frontier

Fingerprints, in cases where the authorities 
decided to take fingerprints when the 
alien crossed the external frontier

Positive march by Eurodac from a comparison 
of the fingerprints of the applicant with 
fingerprints taken pursuant to Article 14 
Eurodac II Regulation (Eurodac category 2 hit)

Entry stamp in a forged or falsified passport

Exit stamp from a country borderting 

on a Member State, bearing in mind 
the route taken by the applicant and 
the date the frontier was crossed

Tickets conclusively establishing 
entry at an external frontier

Fingerprints, in cases where the 

authorities decided to take fingerprints when 
the alien crossed the external frontier

Entry stamp in a passport

The entry stamp or similar endorsement in a passport is a probative means of evidence for legal or illegal entry. If 
the passport was falsified or forged, and it contains an entry stamp, it substantiates the illegal entry.

 
 
 
 
 
48 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

Exit stamp

An exit stamp in a passport is probative evidence in multiple cases. When examining the criteria related to entry 
or stay in another Member State, the case officer should check if there are exit stamps in the passport. If the 
stamp was made by a country bordering a Member State, the case officer should examine the date when the 
frontier was crossed, and should bear in mind the route the applicant had taken. If the entry at an external fron-
tier was made after the date of the exit stamp in a passport and the entry was not authorised, the exit stamp is 
proof of irregular entry.

Tickets conclusively establishing entry at an external frontier

If provided during the personal interview or at another stage of the asylum procedure, tickets (airplane, train, 
bus, etc.) conclusively establishing the entry at an external frontier is evidence and should be considered by 
a case officer when assessing responsibility.

Positive match by Eurodac

Undisputable evidence concerning the application of the Dublin III Regulation provisions is the result of a hit in the 
Eurodac base. When a case officer receives the information of a hit as a result of a data comparison in the Eurodac 
database, it is clear that the person has had a potentially relevant contact with another Member State authority 
in the past. When there is a positive match by Eurodac with category 2 ‘irregular crossing of an external border’ or 
‘illegal entry’ from a Member State at the external frontier, it is a proof that the person was outside the territory 
of the Member State which they have entered illegally. The date of taking the fingerprints, which is available in the 
Eurodac data, shows the moment of entry into the territory of the European Union. Fingerprints can also serve as 
probative means of evidence to support that the applicant had left the territory of the Member States.

Fingerprints

Depending on the circumstances in which they were taken, fingerprints can be proof or circumstantial evidence. 
If the fingerprints are taken in relation to crossing the external frontier, or related to an application for inter-
national protection, the fingerprints are probative evidence. Fingerprints attached to the request will help the 
requested Member State to search in the national database in order to identify the person concerned.

Means of proof in case of residence for at least five months – Article 13(2)

Residence in a Member State for at 
least five months (Article 13(2))

Residence authorisation issued 
while the application for residence 
permit is being examined

Requests to leave the territory or expulsion 
order issued on dates at least five months 
apart or that have not been enforced

Extracts from the records of hospitals, 
prisons, detention centres

Residence authorisations

Residence authorisations that are issued to the person concerned while their application for a residence permit 
is being examined proves that the person stayed in a Member State for a certain period of time. If this period 
was at least five months, this document should be attached to the take charge request to be sent to the Member 
State that issued said residence authorisation.

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 49

Requests to leave the territory or expulsion order issued on dates at least five months 
apart or that have not been enforced

An expulsion order without a trace of leaving the territory of the Member States, or several expulsion orders or 
requests to leave the territory of the country can indicate that the person did not leave the territory and has been 
staying in a given Member State for a period of three months. The period of stay should be checked.

Extracts from the records of hospitals, prisons, detention centres

If the applicant is able to present any or several of these documents, indicating a continuous period of stay for at 
least five months in a Member State, a take charge request on the basis of Article 13(2) can be initiated.

Circumstantial evidence in case of visa waived entry (Article 14), irregular 
entry (Article 13(1)), stay in a Member State for at least five months 
(Article 13(2))

Legal entry into the territory at 
an external frontier (Article 14)

Illegal entry into the 
territory at an external 
frontier (Article 13(1))

Residence in a Member 
State for at least five 
months (Article 13(2))

Detailed and verifiable 
statements of the applicant

Reports/confirmation of 
the information by an 
international organisation, 
such as UNHCR 

Reports/confirmation of 
the information by another 
Member State or third country

Reports/confirmation 
of the information 
by family members, 
travelling companions 

Fingerprints, except in 
cases where the authorities 
decided to take fingerprints 
when the alien crossed 
the external frontier

Tickets, hotel receipts, entry 
cards for public or private 
institutions in the Member 
States, appointment cards for 
doctors, dentists; information 
showing that the applicant has 
used the services of a travel 
agency or other circumstantial 
evidence of the same kind

Detailed and verifiable 
statements of the applicant

Detailed and verifiable 
statements of the applicant

Reports/confirmation of 
the information by an 
international organisation, 
such as UNHCR

Reports/confirmation of 
the information by an 
international organisation, 
such as UNHCR, or by NGOs

Reports/confirmation of 
the information by another 
Member State or third country

Reports/confirmation of 
the information by another 
Member State or third country

Reports/confirmation 
of the information 
by family members, 
travelling companions 

 Reports/confirmation 
of the information 
by family members, 
travelling companions

Fingerprints, except in 
cases where the authorities 
decided to take fingerprints 
when the alien crossed 
the external frontier

Fingerprints, except in 
cases where the authorities 
decided to take fingerprints 
when the alien crossed 
the external frontier

Tickets, hotel receipts, entry 
cards for public or private 
institutions in the Member 
States, appointment cards for 
doctors, dentists; information 
showing that the applicant has 
used the services of a travel 
agency or other circumstantial 
evidence of the same kind

Tickets, hotel receipts, entry 
cards for public or private 
institutions in the Member 
States, appointment cards for 
doctors, dentists; information 
showing that the applicant has 
used the services of a travel 
agency or other circumstantial 
evidence of the same kind

Information showing 
that the person used the 
services of a courier

Information showing 
that the person used the 
services of a courier

 
50 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

Detailed, verifiable statements of the applicant

In some instances, the applicants may not be able to provide documentary evidence to prove the entry or 
residence in another Member State. Detailed and verifiable statements concerning the circumstances of entry 
or residence that can be verified by the other Member State by checking the registration could serve as circum-
stantial evidence. For topics to be elaborated during the interview for the sake of collecting relevant information 
concerning travel route, see Areas to explore during the interview: entry, stay & previous application.

Reports/confirmation of the information by another Member State or third country

Entry at an external frontier (either visa waived or illegal) can also be supported by confirmation of the informa-
tion or report from another Member State or a third country.

Reports/confirmation of the information by an international organisation, such as UNHCR, 
or by a non-governmental organisation, such as an organisation providing accommodation 
for those in need

The Member States can use the information provided by international organisations, or non-governmental organ-
isations. These reports or confirmation of the information by can further support the request. The requested 
Member State shall take these documents into account and conduct the relevant verification/research.

Reports/confirmation of the information by family members, travelling companions

Coherent, verifiable and sufficiently detailed statements regarding the applicant’s travel route can also support 
requests, especially in cases where there is no other evidence available. This might be particularly relevant when 
a larger group of applicants travel together and lodge their applications on the same day.

Fingerprints

Depending on the circumstances in which they were taken, fingerprints can be proof or circumstantial evidence. 
If the fingerprints are taken in relation to crossing the external frontier, or related to an application for inter-
national protection, the fingerprints are probative evidence. Fingerprints attached to the request will help the 
requested Member State to search in the national database in order to identify the person concerned.

Tickets, hotel bills, entry cards, etc.

Tickets, hotel bills, entry cards for public or private institutions in the Member States, appointment cards for doc-
tors, dentists, information that shows the applicant has used the services of a travel agency or other circumstan-
tial evidence of the same kind, and information showing that the person used the services of a courier:

If the applicant states that they entered the country coming from a third country, or has been staying in another 
Member State for a period of more than five months, the stay in another Member State or the stay outside the 
territory of the Member States can be supported by the abovementioned documents, which are elements of 
circumstantial evidence. If the applicant is in possession of any of the abovementioned, these tickets, cards, etc. 
can support the statements of the applicant concerning the stay in another Member State or in a third country 
and might constitute evidence to support the take charge or take back request.

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 51

Previous application for international protection [back to checklist]

Dublin III Regulation

Implementing Regulation

Articles 18 (1) (b), (c), (d) and 
20(5)

Annex II

An asylum claim was lodged previously with another Member State

Article 3(1) Dublin III Regulation defines that ‘[t]he application [for international protection] shall be examined 
by a single Member State, which shall be the one which the criteria set out in Chapter III indicate is responsible.’ 
In cases where no Member State can be designated as responsible on the basis of Chapter III, ‘the first Mem-
ber State in which the application for international protection was lodged shall be responsible for examining it’, 
unless the transfer cannot take place due to systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception condi-
tions in that Member State (Article 3(2) Dublin III Regulation).

In cases where the applicant has previously lodged an asylum claim with another Member State, and the criteria 
set out in Chapter III is not applicable, a take back procedure will be initiated.

Assessing the applicability of the Dublin III Regulation

Consequently, the case officer has to examine whether the other Member State is still obliged to take back the 
person concerned by assessing the available evidence and ensure that the responsibility of the Member State has 
not ceased. The case officer has to make sure that the application of the criteria was in line with the provisions set 
out in the Dublin III Regulation.

In cases where an application for international protection has been previously lodged in another Member State it 
is also necessary to check whether the person is falling under the scope of the Dublin III Regulation. As mentioned 
in the section on Personal scope, the Dublin III Regulation is not applicable if the person has already been granted 
international protection by another Member State.

Eurodac II Regulation

Article 18(1)

Article 18(1) Eurodac II Regulation sets out the obligation of marking the data in the Central System when an 
applicant is granted international protection.

‘For the purposes laid down in Article 1(1), the Member State of origin which granted international protec-
tion to an applicant for international protection whose data were previously recorded in the Central System 
pursuant to Article 11 shall mark the relevant data in conformity with the requirements for electronic commu-
nication with the Central System established by the Agency. That mark shall be stored in the Central System in 
accordance with Article 12 for the purpose of transmission under Article 9(5). The Central System shall inform 
all Member States of origin of the marking of data by another Member State of origin having produced a hit 
with data which they transmitted relating to persons referred to in Article 9(1) or 14(1). Those Member States 
of origin shall also mark the corresponding data sets.’

Article 18(1) Eurodac II Regulation

In case the Eurodac search results in a hit which is marked, the Member State conducting the search will see that 
the person is already a beneficiary of international protection. Therefore, the Dublin procedure is not applicable 
in these cases.

In cases where the Eurodac hit is not marked but there are indications that the person might have been granted 
international protection, an information request pursuant to Article 34 Dublin III Regulation can be sent to verify 
the status of the person.

 
52 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

Obligation to take back an applicant to examine the application 
for international protection

Dublin III Regulation

Article 18 (1) (b) to (d)

Article 18 of the Dublin III Regulation specifies the obligations of the Member State responsible. The Member 
State where an application for international protection was lodged previously shall be obliged to take back the 
applicant if:

•  The application of the person concerned is under examination and the person concerned has made an 
application  in  another  Members  State  or  they  are  on  the  territory  of  another  Member  State  without 
a residence document. (Article 18(1)b))

•  The applicant has withdrawn the application in the other Member State and made a new application in 
another Member State or they are staying on the territory of the other Member State without a resi-
dence document. (Article 18(1)c))

•  The  application  of  the  person  concerned  was  rejected  and  they  have  made  a  new  application  in  an-
other Member State or is staying on the territory of the Member State without a residence document. 
(Article 18(1)d))

Article 18(2) specifies that the Member State responsible under Article 18(1) a) or b), shall examine or complete 
the examination of the asylum claim. The Member State responsible under Article 18(1) c) should give the appli-
cant the opportunity to either request the continuation of the examination of their asylum application, or the 
opportunity to lodge a new application in the responsible Member State. Furthermore, ‘in the cases falling within 
the scope of paragraph 1(d), where the application has been rejected at first instance only, the Member State 
responsible shall ensure that the person concerned has or has had the opportunity to seek an effective remedy 
pursuant to Article 46 of Directive 2013/32/EU’.

Obligation to take back the applicant to conduct the Dublin procedure

Dublin III Regulation

Article 20(5)

In general, the aim of the take back procedure is to determine the Member State responsible and to transfer 
the applicant to that Member State so that the asylum application could be examined. However, the take back 
procedure is also applicable in cases where the applicant is ‘present in another Member State without a resi-
dence document or who their lodges an application for international protection after withdrawing his or her first 
application made in a different Member State during the process of determining the Member State responsi-
ble’. (Article 20(5)). In these specific cases, the applicant should be taken back by the Member State where the 
applicant first lodged and withdrew the application in order for that Member State to complete the process of 
determining the Member State responsible.

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 53

Means of proof in case of take back procedure:

Process of determining the Member State responsible is under way in the Member State where the application 
was lodged (Article 20(5)) and application is under examination or was lodged previously (Article 18(1)(b)(c)(d)

Application is under examination or was lodged 
previously  
(Article 18(1)(b)(c)(d))

Process of determining the Member State  
is under way  
Article 20(5)

Positive match by Eurodac

Positive match by Eurodac

Form submitted by the applicant

Form submitted by the applicant

Official report drawn up by the authorities

Official report drawn up by the authorities

Fingerprints taken in connection 
with an application

Fingerprints taken in connection 
with an application

Extracts from relevant registers and files

Extracts from relevant registers and files

Written report by the authorities attesting 
that an application has been made

Written report by the authorities attesting 
that an application has been made

Positive match by Eurodac

Undisputable evidence concerning the application of the Dublin III Regulation provisions is the result of a hit in 
the Eurodac base. When a case officer receives the information of a hit as a result of a data comparison in the 
Eurodac database, it is clear that the person has had a relevant contact with another Member State authority 
in the past. The match may show previous asylum application (category 1) in another Member State. The case 
officer has to take into account all elements of a Eurodac search result. If there is a hit showing a previous applica-
tion for international protection in another Member State, the Eurodac search result shall be attached to the take 
back request (Article 18(1) b)-d) or 20(5)).

Form submitted by the applicant (application form)

During the interview an applicant can submit a copy of an application form lodged in another Member State. 
Such a copy can be used as proof that the person has previously applied for international protection and a case 
officer shall send a request for taking back.

Official report drawn up by the authorities

In cases when there is an official report drawn up by the authorities of another Member State such as a registra-
tion form, a decision, etc., a case officer has evidence of the lodging of a previous application for international 
protection.

Fingerprints taken in connection with an application

In case when there is no Eurodac hit, but the case officer has reasons to believe that a person has previously 
applied for international protection in another Member State, the fingerprints, taken in connection with the 
application, can be attached to the take back request. If the situation is unclear, a request for information under 
Article 34 Dublin III Regulation may be sent before such a request. When the authorities of the requested Mem-
ber State have the fingerprints of the person at their disposal, they are able to make the necessary checks and, 
depending on the results, apply the provisions of the Dublin III Regulation.

 
54 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

Extracts from register of aliens or similar registers

Any official documents revealing information about previous applications can also be used as proof that the 
person has either an on-going or finalised asylum procedure in another Member State. In such cases a take back 
request can be sent on this basis.

Written report by the authorities attesting that an application has been made

In cases where a case officer has doubts whether the applicant has previously applied for international protec-
tion in another Member State, based on the statements of the applicant during the personal interview, a request 
based on Article 34 can be sent asking for information concerning the person: whether they have applied for 
protection, whether they have a final decision on the application, etc. An answer by the requested authorities 
confirming the previous asylum application can be used as proof on which basis a request for taking back should 
be sent.

Circumstantial evidence in case of take back procedure

Process of determining the Member State responsible is under way in the Member State where the application 
was lodged (Article 20(5)) and application is under examination or was lodged previously (Article 18(1)(b)(c)(d).

Application is under examination  
or was lodged previously  
(Article 18(1)(b)(c)(d))

Process of determining the Member State 
responsible is under way in the Member State 
where the application was lodged (Article 20(5))

Verifiable statements of the applicant

Verifiable statements of the applicant

Reports/ confirmation of the information by an 
international organisation, such as UNHCR, 

Reports/ confirmation of the information by an 
international organisation, such as UNHCR, 

Reports/ confirmation of the information 
by another Member State 

Reports/ confirmation of the information 
by another Member State 

Reports / confirmation by family 
members, travelling companions

Detailed and verifiable information provided by the applicant

During the personal interview the applicant can provide information about their previous asylum claim. For top-
ics to be elaborated during the interview for the sake of collecting relevant information concerning travel route, 
previous asylum procedure, etc. see Areas to explore during the interview: entry, stay & previous application.

Reports/confirmation of the information by an international organisation, such as UNHCR

The Member States can use the information provided by international organisations. Reports or confirmation of 
the information by an international organisation can further support the request. The requested Member State 
should take these documents into account and conduct the relevant verification/research.

Reports/confirmation of the information by family members, travelling companions

Coherent, verifiable and sufficiently detailed statements regarding the applicant’s travel route can also support 
requests, and can support the applicant’s statements.

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 55

Cessation of responsibilities – departure from the territory 
and expulsions [back to checklist]

Dublin III Regulation

Article 2(l), Article 19 (1) to (3) 
and Article 20(5)

Cessation of responsibilities (Article 19(1), (2), (3))

Article 19 Dublin III Regulation states that the responsibility may cease under certain conditions. Either the 
requested Member State or the applicant may – according to the CJEU judgment of 7 June 2016, George Karim 
v Migrationsverkert (Sweden)4 – invoke this clause and bring forward proof or circumstantial evidence in this 
regard. In this case, the requested Member State is asked to establish that the conditions for cessation apply or 
responsibility has been transferred to another Member State. The requesting Member State needs to fully assess 
the relevant information.

Article 19(1) specifies that in case a Member State issues a residence document to the applicant, ‘the obligations 
specified in Article 18(1) shall be transferred to that Member State’ that issued the residence document.

Article 19(2), also known as the ‘three-months rule’, stipulates that:

… [t]he obligations specified in Article 18(1) shall cease where the Member State responsible can establish, 
when requested to take charge or take back an applicant or another person as referred to in Article 18(1)
(c) or (d), that the person concerned has left the territory of the Member States for at least three months, 
unless the person concerned is in possession of a valid residence document issued by the Member State 
responsible.

Article 19(3), also known as the ‘return rule’, provides that:

… [t]he obligations specified in Article 18(1)(c) and (d) shall cease where the Member State responsible can 
establish, when requested to take back an applicant or another person as referred to in Article 18(1)(c) 
or (d), that the person concerned has left the territory of the Member States in compliance with a return 
decision or removal order issued following the withdrawal or rejection of the application.

Article 20 (5) also sets rules for cessation of responsibilities. As specified under Obligation to take back the appli-
cant to conduct the Dublin procedure, in particular cases, the Member State is obliged to take back an applicant 
for the sake of completing the procedure of determining the responsible Member State. In case the Member 
State requested to take back the applicant can establish the cessation of responsibility in accordance with Article 
19(1) or 19(2), the obligation to take the applicant back shall cease.

Annex II of the Implementing Regulation contains the following list of means of proof and circumstantial evidence 
regarding cessation of responsibilities under Articles 19 (2) and (3) or Article 20 (5).

4 

Judgment of the CJEU of 7 June 2016, George Karim v Migrationsverkert, C-155/15.

 
56 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

Means of proof for cessation of responsibility – Article 19(2), 19(3) 
and Article 20(5)

Departure from the 
territory of the Member 
States (Article 19(2))

Departure from the territory 
of the Member States 
(Articles 20(5) and 19(2))

Expulsion from the 
territory of the Member 
States (Article 19(3))

Written proof from the 
authorities that the alien 
has actually been expelled

Exit stamp

Confirmation of the 
information regarding 
expulsion by the third country

Exit stamp

Exit stamp

Extracts from third 
country registers 
(substantiating residence)

Extracts from third 
country registers 
(substantiating residence)

Exit stamp from a third 
country bordering on a 
Member State, bearing in 
mind the route taken by the 
applicant and the date on 
which the frontier was crossed

Fingerprints, in cases where 
the authorities decided to take 
fingerprints when the alien 
crossed the external frontier

Written proof from the 
authorities that the alien 
has actually been expelled

Tickets conclusively 
establishing departure from 
or entry at external frontier

Report / confirmation from 
which the applicant left the 
territory of the Member States

Stamp from a third country 
cordering on a Member 
State, bearing in mind the 
route taken by the applicant 
and the date on which the 
frontier was crossed

Fingerprints, in cases where 
the authorities decided to take 
fingerprints when the alien 
crossed the external frontier

Exit stamp

An exit stamp in a passport is probative evidence in multiple cases. When examining the criteria related to entry 
or stay in another Member State, the case officer should check if there are exit stamps in the passport.

Extracts from third country registers

Any official documents, such as extracts from third country registers, files, revealing information about stay in 
a third country, or official documents that support the related statements of the applicant can be used as evi-
dence to support cessation of responsibility.

Tickets conclusively establishing departure from or entry at an external frontier

Tickets (airplane, train, bus, etc.) conclusively establishing departure from a Member State or third country, or 
entry at an external frontier constitute evidence and should be considered by a case officer when assessing 
responsibility.

Reports/confirmation by the Member State from which the applicant left the territory of 
the Member States

Confirmation from the Member State from which the applicant left the territory of the Members States is proba-
tive means of evidence. If such confirmation is already available or becomes available following a consultation 
with the other Member State, it can prove the cessation of responsibility.

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 57

Written proof from the authorities that the alien has actually been expelled

Confirmation from the Member State which successfully expelled the person concerned is probative means of 
evidence. If such confirmation is already available or becomes available following a consultation with the other 
Member State, such proof can support the cessation of responsibility.

Confirmation of the information regarding expulsion by the third country

Confirmation from the third country to which the person concerned was expelled or returned constitutes proba-
tive means of evidence. If the confirmation is already available or becomes available during the Dublin procedure, 
such proof can support the cessation of responsibility.

(Exit) stamp from a third country bordering on a Member State, bearing in mind the route 
taken by the applicant and the date on which the frontier was crossed

A stamp in a passport is probative evidence in multiple cases. If the stamp was made by a country bordering 
a Member State, the case officer should examine the date when the frontier was crossed, and should bear in 
mind the route the applicant had taken. If the entry at an external frontier was made after the date of the exit 
stamp in a passport and the entry was not authorised, the exit stamp is proof of irregular entry.

Fingerprints

Depending on the circumstances in which they were taken, fingerprints can be proof or circumstantial evidence. 
If the fingerprints are taken in relation to crossing the external frontier, or related to an application for interna-
tional protection, the fingerprints constitute probative evidence. Fingerprints attached to the request will help 
the requested Member State to search in the national database in order to identify the person concerned.

 
58 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

Circumstantial evidence regarding cessation of responsibility – Article 19(2), 
19(3) and 20(5)

Departure from the 
territory of the Member 
States (Article 19(2))

 Departure from the territory 
of the Member States 
(Articles 20(5) and 19(2))

Expulsion from the 
territory of the Member 
States (Article 19(3))

Detailed and verifiable 
statements by the applicant

Detailed and verifiable 
statements by the applicant

Verifiable statements 
by the applicant

Reports/confirmation of 
the information by an 
international organisation, 
such as UNHCR

Reports/confirmation of 
the information by an 
international organisation, 
such as UNHCR

Reports/confirmation of 
the information by an 
international organisation, 
such as UNHCR

Reports/confirmation 
of the information 
by family members, 
travelling companions

Reports/confirmation 
of the information 
by family members, 
travelling companions

Reports/confirmation 
of the information 
by family members, 
travelling companions

Reports/confirmation 
of the information by 
another Member State; 

Reports/confirmation 
of the information by 
another Member State; 

Exit stamp where the 
applicant concerned has 
left the territory of the 
Member States for a period 
of at least 3 months

Fingerprints, except in 
cases where the authorities 
decided to take fingerprints 
when the alien crossed 
the external frontier

Tickets; hotel receipts; entry 
cards for public or private 
institutions in the Member 
States; appointment cards 
for doctors, dentists, etc.; 
information showing that 
the applicant has used the 
services of a courier or travel 
agency; other circumstantial 
evidence of the same kind.

Exit stamp where the 
applicant concerned has 
left the territory of the 
Member States for a period 
of at least 3 months

Fingerprints, except in 
cases where the authorities 
decided to take fingerprints 
when the alien crossed 
the external frontier

Tickets; hotel receipts; entry 
cards for public or private 
institutions in the Member 
States; appointment cards 
for doctors, dentists, etc.; 
information showing that 
the applicant has used the 
services of a courier or travel 
agency; other circumstantial 
evidence of the same kind.

Exit stamp where the 
applicant concerned has 
left the territory of the 
Member States for a period 
of at least 3 months

Fingerprints, except in 
cases where the authorities 
decided to take fingerprints 
when the alien crossed 
the external frontier

Tickets; hotel receipts; entry 
cards for public or private 
institutions in the Member 
States; appointment cards 
for doctors, dentists, etc.; 
information showing that 
the applicant has used the 
services of a courier or travel 
agency; other circumstantial 
evidence of the same kind.

Detailed and verifiable information provided by the applicant

Detailed and verifiable statements concerning the circumstances of entry, residence outside the territory of 
the Member States that can be verified could serve as circumstantial evidence. During the personal interview 
the applicant can provide information about their stay in a third country, a previous asylum claim, stay in a third 
country etc. For topics to be elaborated during the interview for the sake of collecting relevant information 
concerning travel route, previous asylum application and information relevant to the potential cessation of 
responsibility see Areas to explore during the interview: entry, stay & previous application.

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 59

Reports/confirmation of the information by an international organisation, such as UNHCR

The Member States can use the information provided by international organisations to support their requests. 
Reports or confirmation of the information by an international organisation can further support the request. The 
requested Member State shall take these documents into account and conduct the relevant verification/research.

Reports/confirmation of the information by family members, travelling companions

Coherent, verifiable and sufficiently detailed statements regarding the applicant’s travel route can also support 
requests, and can support the applicant’s statements.

Reports/confirmation of the information by another Member State

If another Member State (no the one from which the applicant left the territory) can provide a report or can con-
firm the information regarding the person’s departure from the territory of the Member States, this information 
can be regarded as circumstantial evidence.

Exit stamp

When examining the criteria related to entry or stay in another Member State, the case officer should check if 
there are exit stamps in the passport. If the stamp was made by a country bordering a Member State, the case 
officer should examine the date when the frontier was crossed, and should bear in mind the route the applicant 
had taken. The case officer also have to examine the period the applicant spent outside the territory of the Mem-
ber States.

Fingerprints

Depending on the circumstances in which they were taken, fingerprints can be proof or circumstantial evidence. 
If the fingerprints are taken in relation to crossing the external frontier, or related to an application for inter-
national protection, the fingerprints are probative evidence. Fingerprints attached to the request will help the 
requested Member State to search in the national database in order to identify the person concerned.

Tickets, hotel bills, entry cards, etc.

Tickets, hotel bills, entry cards for public or private institutions in the Member States, appointment cards for doc-
tors, dentists; information showing that the applicant has used the services of a travel agency or other circum-
stantial evidence of the same kind, and information showing that the person used the services of a courier:

If the applicant states that they entered the country coming from a third country, or has been staying in another 
Member State for a period of more than five months, the stay in another Member State or the stay outside the 
territory of the Member States can be supported by the abovementioned documents, which are elements of 
circumstantial evidence. If the applicant is in possession of any of the abovementioned, these tickets, cards, etc. 
can support the statements of the applicant concerning the stay in another Member State or in a third country 
and might constitute evidence to support the take charge or take back request.

Other evidence

In order to assess the case, the case officer can consider other evidence to verify the duration of stay of a person 
in a third country: tickets, hotel bills, entry cards for public or private institutions, appointment cards for doc-
tors, dentists, information that the applicant has used the services of a travel agency or of a courier. This types of 
evidence can be used if they correspond to the statements of the applicant and the information provided during 
the personal interview concerning their travel routes, whereabouts, etc.

 
60 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

Specific considerations regarding Dublin transfers [back to checklist]

Dublin III Regulation

Articles 3(2) second 
subparagraph, Article 17 (1)

The requesting Member State has to verify that the transfer to the requested Member State can take place.

According to Article 3(2) second subparagraph Dublin III Regulation, the transfer cannot take place if ‘there are 
substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception 
conditions for applicants in that Member State, resulting in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within 
the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.’ In its judgement of 16 
February 2017 in case CK and others v Supreme Court of Republic Slovenia5 (hereinafter CK and others), the CJEU 
clarified that the impossibility of transfers does not only apply to cases of ‘systemic flaws’ but also if the transfer 
itself would result in a proven risk of the transferred person suffering inhuman or degrading treatment, within the 
meaning of Article 4 Charter. Moreover, before the transfer takes place, the Member State can always make use 
of the discretionary clause if it is found that there are reasons for not transferring an applicant to another Mem-
ber State. For instance, family ties found in the present Member State, health issues, etc. that do not amount 
to a risk of a violation of Article 4 Charter. The application of the ‘sovereignty clause’ in such cases may also be 
subject to national guidance.

Assessing the evidence

As the CJEU stated in CK and others, in case of real and foreseeable risk of treatment contrary to Article 4 Charter 
or Article 3 ECHR, the Member State authorities should not proceed with the transfer.

In CK and others, the CJEU considered the special health situation, which has a link to Article 4 Charter if a ‘par-
ticularly serious mental or physical illness would result in a real and proven risk of a significant and permanent 
deterioration in his state of health, that transfer would constitute inhuman and degrading treatment’ (para. 74).

The respective evidentiary standards and the potential effects of the principle of mutual trust have not yet been 
fully clarified by the CJEU. In the CK and others judgment, the CJEU clarified that mutual trust may not alter the 
absolute nature of the protection granted by Article 3 ECHR or Article 4 Charter. However, it should be noted that 
both the CJEU and the ECtHR place the bar quite high when assessing concretely what are ‘the systemic defi-
ciencies’ or ‘real and foreseeable risk’ of treatment contrary to Article 4 Charter and 3 ECHR. It results from the 
judgement of the CJEU in case N.S., that the mutual trust should not be compromised through systematic exami-
nation in every Dublin procedure whether the responsible Member State respects all of its obligations under the 
CEAS. It also results from the jurisprudence of ECtHR that in order for a real risk of inhuman or degrading treat-
ment to exist, there must be very serious situations in the responsible Member State (see in particular ECtHR, 
judgement of 21 January 2011 M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece6, paragraphs 252, 263 and 249).

In this context, the following judgements are of particular importance: the joined CJEU judgment of 21 December 
2011 in joined cases N.S. and others and M.E. and Others7; the CJEU judgment of 19 March 2019, Abubacarr Jawo 
v Bundesrepublic Deutschland8; the ECtHR judgment of 21 January 2011, M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece9; the ECtHR 
judgment of 4 November 2014, Tarakhel v Switzerland10.

Consequently, there may be a violation of Article 4 Charter (or Article 3 ECHR respectively) in particular if there 
is no access to the asylum procedure in the Member State responsible or if the (individual) reception conditions 

5 
6 
7 

Judgement of CJEU of 16 February 2017, CK and others v Supreme Court of Republic Slovenia, C-578/16 PPU.

Judgement of the ECtHR, 21 January 2011 , M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece, no 30696/09, points 252, 263 and 249.

Judgment of the CJEU of 21 December 2011, N.S. and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department and M.E. and Others v 
Refugee Applications Commissioner and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10.

Judgment of the CJEU of 19 March 2019 in, Abubacarr Jawo v Bundesrepublic Deutschland, case C-163/17.

8 
9 
10  Judgment of the ECtHR of 4 November 2014, Tarakhel v Switzerland, no 29217/12.

Judgment of the ECtHR on 21 January 2011, M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece, no 30696/09. 

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 61

are amounting to such a violation, including the risk of being arbitrarily detained upon arrival, or if the applicant 
would be exposed to a substantial risk of suffering inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Arti-
clee 4 Charter.

Especially in cases concerning families or vulnerable persons, it might be necessary to obtain specific individual 
assurances from the authorities of the requested Member State if there are indications that a transfer to that 
Member State without such guarantees could entail in a risk of violation of Article 4 Charter. The case officer 
might need to assess the legal and factual situation in the Member State to which the applicant is transferred 
individually. In such a situation, the mere absence of such assurances could render the Dublin transfer decision 
unlawful and could be invoked by the applicant on appeals. In the individual assessment, these assurances need 
to be distinguished from transfer modalities and the respective obligation to exchange data prior to the trans-
fer pursuant to Articles 31 and 32 Dublin III Regulation as well as from other human rights violations during the 
transfer process.

 
62 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

Annex I – Areas to explore during the interview: family links

Issues to be explored during the interview regarding family unity

The points listed here are not suggestive of how the case officer should ask or formulate questions but 
rather a reminder of what issues may need to be explored, depending on the particular circumstances of the 
application, in order to gather the information necessary for determining the responsibility.

Exploring and establishing family links

 □ The presence of family member(s) or relative(s) in another Member State(s).

 □ The personal data of the family member(s)/relative(s).

 □ Other data of the family member(s)/relative(s) regarding the current accommodation (e.g. contact 

details).

 □ How the applicant and the family member(s)/relative(s) are related.

 □ Where the case involves a spouse, details about how this relationship formed (when, where, how).

 □ In case of relative(s), dependency should be explored (see below).

 □ The status the family member(s)/relative(s) have in the other Member State.

 □ The circumstances under which they have been separated.

 □ Information about the contact between the applicant and the other member(s), especially since they 

were separated.

 □ Any supporting document related to the family link.

 □ Written consent of the persons concerned.

Dependency

The issues mentioned above under family links have to be explored wherever applicable. It also has to be 
assessed if there is any kind of dependency between the applicant and any relative(s) residing in another 
Member State.

In case there is dependency, gather information on:

 □ Who exactly is/are the dependent person(s).

 □ The cause of dependency.

 □ The kind of dependency.

 □ The way that the person(s) is/are dependent.

 □ Who was taking care of the applicant/dependent person in the country of origin/former habitual 

residence.

 □ Who was taking care of the applicant/dependent person during the journey and in the country of refuge.

 □ What difficulties the dependent person(s) face in their daily life. Whether the applicant is able to take 

care of the relative and how.

 □ Where the applicant is the dependent person, whether the other person is able to take care of the 

applicant and how.

 □ Any supporting document, related to the situation of dependency e.g. medical reports, documents, 

psychological or social reports.

 □ Written consent of the persons concerned.

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 63

Unaccompanied child

 □ Any supporting document about the family links.

 □ Any supporting document related to the applicant’s minority age, especially if the applicant is close to the 

age of 18 (e.g. ID document or birth certificate)

 □ Information regarding the nature of the relationship between the minor and the relative while in the 

country of origin (whether aunt, uncle, grandmother, grandfather)

 □ Capacity of the relative to take care of the child.

 □ The well-being and social development of the child.

 □ Safety and security considerations, in particular where there is a possibility that the child has been or 

could potentially become a victim of human trafficking.

 □ Views of the child, taking account of their age and maturity, and cultural background.

Discretionary clauses: sovereignty clause

 □ Objections from the applicant to being transferred to a country that is potentially the responsible 

Member State. The objections could be related to personal grounds (family reasons, health reasons) and/
or to the general situation in the responsible Member State.

 □ Presence in the Member State of family members that are (not) applicants for international protection.

 □ Reasons for these objections.

Discretionary clauses: humanitarian clause

 □ The presence in another Member State of another family relation other than that previously explored

 □ The personal data of this/these person(s).

 □ Other data of that person(s) that are related to the current place of stay (e.g. address).

 □ The exact kind of relation/contact between the applicant and this/these person(s) in the country of 

origin.

 □ The status this/these person(s) have in the other Member State.

 □ The circumstances under which they have been separated.

 □ Information about the relation/contact between the applicant and this/these persons, since they were 

separated.

 □ Reasons why they want to be reunited.

 □ Any supporting document.

 □ Any supporting document e.g. medical documents, photos, tickets of any visit of the other person in 

order to meet the applicant

 □ Written consent of both parties

 
64 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

Annex II – Areas to explore during the interview: entry, stay & 
previous application

Issues to be explored during the interview regarding residence, visa, irregular entry and stay, earlier 
asylum applications, cessation of responsibilities.

The points listed here are not suggestive of how the case officer should ask or formulate questions but 
rather a reminder of what issues may need to be explored, depending on the particular circumstances of the 
application, in order to gather information necessary for determining the responsibility.

In case formal evidence supporting the statements of the applicant is absent, the requesting Member State 
should make all reasonable efforts to obtain complete statements concerning the travel route by asking 
detailed questions during the interview.

It is very important to be aware of the applicant’s entire travel route at the end of the interview.

Travel route

 □ Concerning the travel route the case officer shall gather information related to:

 □ Any relevant document that the applicant might have related to their travel and depending on the way in 

which they travelled (e.g. passport, aeroplane, bus or train tickets, boarding passes).

 □ When and where the journey started.

 □ The countries that the applicant travelled through on their journey.

 □ The means in which the applicant travelled and the documents used for travelling. It includes the 
circumstances of the departure, transits and arrival and also the vehicles of transport used by the 
applicant.

 □ The way they crossed the border.

 □ If they had any documents for crossing the borders.

 □ The dates of travelling. It is often difficult for the applicants to provide the exact dates; however, the time 

framework is an important piece of information.

 □ Other people that the applicant might have travelled with.

Application for international protection in another Member State

 □ Length of stay in each place/country.

 □ Status the applicant had in this/these countries.

 □ If the person applied for international protection in another Member State.

 □ If the person applied for international protection, when and where did he apply?

 □ Exact description of the procedure.

 □ The result of this application.

 □ Any documentation relating to the application

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 65

Residence document issued to the applicant

 □ If a residence permit was issued to the applicant.

 □ Which Member State(s) issued the residence document.

 □ When was the residence document issued

 □ The period of validity of the residence document

 □ The type of residence permit.

 □ The time between the expiration date of the residence document and the application for international 

protection.

 □ On which ground the residence permit was issued.

Visa issued to the applicant

 □ If a visa was issued to the applicant.

 □ Which Member State issued the visa.

 □ If the visa was issued by a Member State on behalf of another Member State.

 □ When was the visa issued

 □ The period of validity of the visa

 □ The type of visa issued.

 □ If the person used it to enter/stay in the territory of the Member States.

 □ The time elapsed between the expiration date of the visa and the application for international protection.

 □ If any other type of visa was issued to the applicant.

Cessation of responsibility of a Member State

 □ If the person left the territory of the Member States

 □ The period of being outside of the territory of the Member States

 □ date of leaving and entering the territory of the Member States

 □ Destination (country of origin or another country),

 □ Means of travelling,

 □ Length of stay in the third country,

 □ Why did the applicant leave the territory of the Member States

 □ If the applicant has any supporting documents.

 □ Circumstances of travelling, if they travelled on their own or it was arranged by another Member State.

 
66 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

Annex III – Summary tables on the list of means of proof 
and circumstantial evidence – Family unity

Proofs

Unaccompanied 
minor  
Article 8

Family members 
who are 
beneficiaries of 
international 
protection  
Article 9

Family members 
who are applicants 
for international 
protection  
Article 10

Written confirmation of the information 
by the other MS

Extract from the registers

Residence permits issued to the family 
member

Temporary residence authorisation 
issued to the family member

Evidence that the persons are related (if 
available)

Failing this, and if necessary, a DNA or 
blood test

Consent of the persons concerned

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Circumstantial evidence

Unaccompanied 
minor Article 8

Verifiable information from the applicant

Statements by the family members 
concerned

Report/confirmation of the information 
by an international organisation, such as 
UNHCR

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Family members 
who are 
beneficiaries of 
international 
protection Article 9

Family members 
who are applicants 
for international 
protection
Article 10

✓

✓

✓

✓

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 67

Annex IV – Summary tables on the list of means of proof and 
circumstantial evidence – Residence, visa, irregular entry and stay 
for at least 5 months/legal entry

Proofs

Valid or 
expired 
residence 
documents
Article 12(1)
(3)(4)

Illegal entry
Article 13(1)

Valid or 
expired visa
Article 12(2)
(3)(4)

Residence in 
a Member 
State for 
at least 5 
months
Article 13(2)

Legal entry 
into the 
territory at 
an external 
frontier
Article 14

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Residence document (valid or 
expired, as appropriate) 

Visa (valid or expired) issued

Extract from the register of aliens 
or similar registers

Reports/confirmation of the 
information by the MS which 
issued the residence document 

Reports/confirmation of the 
information by the MS which 
issued the visa

Positive match (hit) transmitted 
by the VIS

Entry stamp (or similar 
endorsement) in a passport or in 
in a forged/falsified passport

Exit stamp from a country 
bordering on a MS/or exit stamp 
by the MS 

Tickets conclusively establishing 
entry at an external frontier 

Residence authorisation 
issued while the application 
for a residence permit is being 
examined

Requests to leave the territory or 
expulsion order issued on dates 
at least five months apart or that 
have not been enforced 

Extract from the records of 
hospitals, prisons, detention 
centres

Positive match on Eurodac 
(category 2) or fingerprints taken 
in connection with irregular entry 

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

 
68 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

Circumstantial 
evidence

Valid or 
expired 
residence 
documents
Article 12(1)
(3)(4)

Illegal entry
Article 13(1)

Valid or 
expired visa
Article 12(2)
(3)(4

Residence in 
a Member 
State for 
at least 5 
months
Article 13(2)

Legal entry 
into the 
territory at 
an external 
frontier
Article 14

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Detailed and verifiable 
statements by the applicant

Report/confirmation of the 
information by an international 
organisation, such as UNHCR 

Report/confirmation of the 
information by MS which did not 
issue the residence permit or visa

Report/confirmation of the 
information by family members, 
travelling companions, etc.

Report/confirmation of the 
information by another MS or 
third country

Reports/confirmation of 
the information by a non-
governmental organisation, such 
as an organisation providing 
accommodation for those in 
need

Fingerprints, except if taken 
when crossing the external 
frontier

Tickets, hotel bills, entry cards, 
appointment cards, information 
showing use of services or other 
circumstantial evidence of the 
same kind, etc.

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 69

Annex V – Summary tables on the list of means of proof and 
circumstantial evidence – Previous applications for international 
protection, departure from the territory and expulsions

Departure from the 
territory of the MS
Article 19 (2), 20(5)

Expulsion from the 
territory of MS
Article 19 (3)

Previous asylum 
applications
Article 18(1)(b)(c)(d); 
20(5)

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Proofs

Exit stamp 

Extract from third country registers 
substantiating residence

Tickets conclusively establishing 
departure from or entry at an external 
frontier

Report/confirmation by the Member 
State from which the applicant left the 
territory of the Member States 

Exit stamp from a third country 
bordering on a MS

Entry stamp (or similar endorsement) in 
a passport

Positive match by Eurodac (category 
1) or fingerprints taken in connection 
with an application for international 
protection 

Fingerprints taken in connection with an 
application

Form submitted by the applicant

Official report drawn up by the 
authorities

Extract from relevant registers and files

Written report by the authorities 
attesting that an application has been 
made

Written proof from the authorities that 
the alien has actually been expelled

✓

Confirmation of the information 
regarding expulsion by the third country

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

 
70 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

Circumstantial evidence

Departure from the 
territory of the MS
Article 19 (2), 20(5)

Expulsion from the 
territory of MS
Article 19 (3)

Previous asylum 
application
Article 18(1)(b)(c)(d); 
20(5)

Detailed and verifiable statements by 
the applicant

Report/confirmation of the information 
by an international organisation such as 
UNHCR 

Report/confirmation of the information 
by another Member State

Report/confirmation of the information 
by family members, travelling 
companions

Exit stamp where the applicant has left 
the territory of the Member States for 
at least 3 months

Fingerprints, except if taken when 
crossing the external frontier

Tickets, hotel bills, entry cards, 
appointment cards, information 
showing the using of services or other 
circumstantial evidence of the same 
kind, etc.

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 71

REFERENCES

 ► references to legislation, relevant case‑law and additional resources

 
72 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

Legal references and relevant case-law

This overview of legal references and jurisprudence is not intended to be an exhaustive reference tool. It only aims 
at providing practical direction to the case officer by referring to some of the most relevant provisions and juris-
prudence. Rulings regarding the application of the Dublin II Regulation that are already codified in the Dublin III 
Regulation are not part of this overview.

The references below are organised by topic. Where possible, the case‑law and additional legal instruments are 
hyperlinked for ease of reference.

Legal framework and scope of the Dublin system

Legal references

Jurisprudence

Dublin III 
Regulation

On rapid determination of responsibility/effective access to the procedures for granting 
international protection:

Implementing 
Regulation

Eurodac II 
Regulation

•  CJEU, judgment of 16 February 2017, C.K. and Others v Supreme Court of 

Republic Slovenia, C-578/16 PPU

Effective access to the procedures for granting international protection (no explicit 
decision for in-merit examination of application needed):

•  CJEU, judgment of 4 October 2018, Bahtiyar Fathi v Predsedatel na Darzhavna 

agentsia za bezhantsite, C-56/17

On the scope of Dublin III Regulation: take back procedure is not applicable to 
beneficiaries of international protection:

•  CJEU, order of the Court of 5 April 2017, Daher Muse Ahmed v Bundesrepublik 

Deutschland, C-36/17

The fact that a Member State notified its intention to withdraw itself from the European 
Union does not oblige the determining Member State to itself examine the application 
for international protection:

•  CJEU, judgment of 23 January 2019, M.A. and Others v The International 

Protection Appeals Tribunal and Others, C-661/17

National jurisprudence

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 73

Criteria for determining the Member State responsible

Legal references

Jurisprudence

Article 8-17

Dublin III 
Regulation

The applicant may plead the incorrect application of criteria in Chapter III Dublin III 
Regulation:

•  CJEU, judgment of 7 June 2016, Mehrdad Ghezelbash v Staatssecretaris van 

Veiligheid en Justitie, C-63/15

The applicant may also plead an infringement of the rule in Article 19(2) Dublin III 
Regulation:

•  CJEU, judgment of 7 June 2016, George Karim v Migrationsverket, C-155/15

On the meaning of the phrasing ‘lodging an application’ as in 2(b) Dublin III Regulation 
and the start of the periods as in Article 21(1) and 23(1) Dublin III Regulation:

•  CJEU, judgment of 26 July 2017, Tsegezab Mengesteab v Bundesrepublik 

Deutschland, C-670/16

National jurisprudence

Provision of information

Legal references

Jurisprudence

Article 4

Dublin III 
Regulation

On failing to provide applicants with sufficient information amounting to a breach of 
Article 3 ECHR:

•  ECtHR, judgment of 14 March 2017, Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary, no 47287/15

Member States have to have a reliable means of communicating with applicants:

•  ECtHR, judgment of 21 January 2011, M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece, no 30696/09

National jurisprudence

Personal interview

Legal references

Jurisprudence

Articles 4 and 5

Dublin III 
Regulation

Aricle 14 APD

On the obligation of personal interview before a transfer decision, and opportunity for 
the applicant to present any further information relevant for the correct determination:
•  CJEU, judgment of 7 June 2016, Mehrdad Ghezelbash v Staatssecretaris van 

Veiligheiden Justitie, C-63/15

National jurisprudence

 
74 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

Specific considerations regarding persons with special needs – children

Legal references

Jurisprudence

Article 24 APD

Article 21, 22 RCD

On considerations before transfer –inhuman or degrading treatment, transfer of 
a seriously ill asylum seeker to the Member State responsible for examining the 
application:

Articles 8, 16, 
17 Dublin III 
Regulation 

•  CJEU, judgment of 16 February 2017, C.K. and Others v Supreme Court of 

Republic Slovenia, C-578/16 PPU

Member States cannot simply deny a right of residence to a third-country national who is 
the parent of an EU-citizen without making a full assessment of the infringement on the 
substance of the rights pertaining to the child’s status as a Union citizen:

•  CJEU, judgment of 10 May 2017, Chavez‑Vilchez and Others v Raad van bestuur 

van de Sociale verzekeringsbank and Others, C-133/15

Best interests of the child and discretionary clause:

•  CJEU, judgment of 23 January 2019, M.A. and Others v The International 

Protection Appeals Tribunal and Others, C-661/17

National jurisprudence

Evidence assessment – possibility of providing proof and making sure that responsibility is 
assessed correctly

Legal references

Jurisprudence

Articles 19(2), 
20(2), 21(1), 22 
(2), (3), (4), (5), 
27(1), 34

Dublin III 
Regulation

Annex II, Annex 
V Implementing 
Regulation

On the scope of the appeal against a transfer decision: the asylum seeker is entitled to 
plead the incorrect application of the criteria for determining responsibility laid down in 
Chapter III Dublin III Regulation:

•  CJEU, judgment of 7 June 2016, Mehrdad Ghezelbash v Staatssecretaris van 

Veiligheid en Justitie, C-63/15

On cessation of responsibility: the asylum seeker is entitled to plead an infringement of 
the rule set out in Article 19(2) Dublin III Regulation according to which the obligation of 
the respective Member State to them back ceases if they have been outside the territory 
of the Member State for a period of at least three months:

•  CJEU, judgment of 7 June 2016, George Karim v Migrationsverket, C-155/15

On lodging an application, start of the determination process, and expiry of the take 
charge request period:

•  CJEU, judgment of 26 July 2017, Tsegezab Mengesteab v Bundesrepublik 

Deutschland, C-670/16

National jurisprudence

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 75

Evidence assessment: criteria and other provisions relating to family unity

Legal references

Jurisprudence

Articles 8, 9, 10, 
11, 16, 17

Dublin III 
Regulation

The application of the discretionary clause of Article 17(1) Dublin III Regulation is 
unconditional. The authority applying Article 17(1) Dublin III Regulation does not have to 
be the authority responsible for determining the Member State responsible. No remedy 
has to be available against the decision not to apply Article 17(1) Dublin III Regulation:
•  CJEU, judgment of 23 January 2019, M.A. and Others v The International 

Protection Appeals Tribunal and Others, C-661/17

As a general rule, Article 9 Dublin III Regulation is not applicable in a take back situation; 
however, in a situation as in Article 20(5) Dublin III Regulation and provided that the 
person concerned proves right away that according to Article 9 Dublin III Regulation, 
the Member State they are currently in should be responsible, then Article 9 Dublin III 
Regulation may be invoked:

•  CJEU, judgment of 2 April 2019, Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie v H. 

and R., joined cases C-582/17 and C-583/17

National jurisprudence

Length of the procedure

Legal references

Jurisprudence

Articles 12, 13,14, 
15,

19 (1),(2),(3), 20(5)

Dublin III 
Regulation

On length of procedure: Member State in which the individual is present must exercise 
its right to examine the application, since it must not use a procedure for determining the 
responsible Member State that takes an unreasonable length of time:

•  CJEU, judgment of 21 December 2011, N.S. and others v Secretary of State for 

the Home Department, joined cases C-411/10 and C-493/10

On re-examination requests and time limit for replying, expiry of time limit and effect:

•  CJEU, judgment of 13 November 2018, X and X v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid 

en Justitie, joined cases C-47/17 and C-48/17

On start of the determination process and lodging an application and time limits for 
making a request:

•  CJEU, judgment of 26 July 2017, Tsegezab Mengesteab v Bundesrepublik 

Deutschland, C-670/16

A transfer decision is only adopted and notified after the acceptance of a transfer 
request:

•  CJEU, judgment of 31 May 2018, Adil Hassan v Préfet du Pas‑de‑Calais, C-647/16

Extended transfer time limit for absconded applicants is evoked by informing the 
Member State responsible before the expiry of the original time limit:

•  CJEU, judgment of 19 March 2019, Abubacarr Jawo v Bundesrepublik 

Deutschland, C-163/17

National jurisprudence

 
76 EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 

Evidence assessment: Criteria relating to residence, entry, and stay

Legal references

Jurisprudence

Articles 12, 13,14, 
15,

19 (1),(2),(3), 20(5)

On entry authorised by way of derogation on humanitarian grounds, definition of a ‘visa’; 
definition of ‘irregular border crossing’; issuing of a visa and irregular crossing of an 
external border; the date of lodging of a request determines the applicability of Article 
13(1) Dublin III Regulation, an appeal against a transfer decision has no effect on this 
period:

Dublin III 
Regulation

•  CJEU, judgment of 26 July 2017, Kadija Jafari and Zainab Jafari v Bundesamt fur 

Fremdenwesen und Asyl, C-646/16

•  CJEU, judgment of 26 July 2017, A.S. v Republic of Slovenia, C- 490/16

National jurisprudence

Evidence assessment: Earlier asylum applications

Legal references

Jurisprudence

Articles 18 (1)
(b),(c),(d)

Dublin III 
Regulation

Regardless of an appeal pending in the requested Member State, a request must always 
be made in time; an appeal lodged on an earlier date can exist (and continue) with 
a simultaneous appeal against a transfer decision of later date; the requested Member 
State need not be informed of previous (pending) appeals; the surrendering of an 
applicant under a European arrest warrant stands separate from the application of the 
Dublin III Regulation:

•  CJEU, judgment of 5 July 2018, X v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, 

C-213/17

Article 18(2) Dublin III Regulation does not require that the procedure for examining that 
applicant’s application is resumed at the stage at which it was discontinued after that 
applicant was transferred:

•  CJEU, judgment of 17 March 2016, Shiraz Baig Mirza v Bevándorlási és 

Állampolgársági Hivatal, C-695/15

A new transfer request must be made when an applicant returns to the Member State 
that previously transferred them, special conditions apply:

•  CJEU, judgment of 25 January 2018, Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Aziz Hasan, 

C-360/16

On application for international protection made by a third-country national benefiting 
from the status conferred by subsidiary protection and the applicability of the take back 
procedure

•  CJEU, order of 5 April 2017, Daher Muse Ahmed v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 

C-36/17

•  CJEU, judgment of 25 January 2018, Federal Republic of Germany v Aziz Hasan, 

C-360/16

National jurisprudence

EASO PRACTICAL GUIDE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUBLIN III REGULATION 77

Dublin transfer

Legal references

Jurisprudence

Articles 3(2)(2), 
17(1)

Dublin III 
Regulation

The expiry of the time limits for the transfer of the person concerned suffices for an 
automatic transfer of responsibility, the person concerned may invoke such argument in 
court:

•  CJEU, judgment of 25 October 2017, Majid Shiri v Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen 

und Asyl, C-201/16

Meaning of the concept ‘absconding’; the extended transfer time limit for absconded 
applicants is evoked by informing the Member State responsible before the expiry of 
the original time limit; Article 4 Charter may be applicable for the transfer of applicants 
as in Article 29 Dublin III Regulation in case of a substantial risk of the person concerned 
suffering inhuman or degrading treatment after receiving international protection in the 
responsible Member State.

•  CJEU, judgment of 19 March 2019, Abubacarr Jawo v Bundesrepublik 

Deutschland, C-163/17

On violation of Article 4 Charter and Article 3 of ECHR and inhuman and degrading 
treatment

•  CJEU, judgment of 16 February 2017, C.K. and Others v Supreme Court of 

Republic Slovenia, C-578/16 PPU

National jurisprudence

 
Getting in touch with the EU

In person
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the address 
of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

On the phone or by email
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service:
– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 
– at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or 
– by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

Finding information about the EU

Online
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website 
at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en  

EU publications
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at: https://publications.europa.
eu/bookshop. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local 
information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en).

EU law and related documents
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official language versions, 
go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

Open data from the EU
The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets from the EU. Data can 
be downloaded and reused for free, both for commercial and non-commercial purposes.