Source: https://aeaj.org/page/-Relevant-Implications-of-Dublin-II-Regulation-in-Slovenian-Jurisprudence-
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:48:43+00:00

Document:
So, what was the input of Slovenian administrative judiciary in the respect of this solidarity clause and mutual confidence between Member States ?
I believe the problems with Dublin Regulation will remain as long as we would not have a really Common European Asylum System. There are significant differences in interpretation and application of Geneva Convention and EU law on asylum in European States and we know, already from the decision of the ECtHR in case of T.I. v. the U.K. From 2000 (that is 3 years before the adoption of the Dublin regulation), that States are not allowed to adopt only so called formal approach to Dublin cases. In T.I. the British Government advocated against the interpretation of the Court which would impose a policing function of assessing whether another Contracting state is complying with the Convention. In the words of British Government that would undermine the effective working of the Dublin Convention. The ECtHR rejected that argument of the British Government by saying that “indirect removal to an intermediary country, which is also a Contracting state, does not affect the responsibility of the United Kingdom to ensure that the applicant is not, as a result of its decision to expel, exposed to treatment contrary to Art. 3 of the Convention, nor can the U.K. automatically in that context on the arrangements made in the Dublin Convention” (para. 16).
 Judgment of the Supreme Court in case I Up 284/2010 from 18 November 2010.
 The CJEU as the purposes of the DublinII. Regulation determines the mutual confidence between EU Member states, avoidance of backlogs and avoiding of forum shopping (C-411/10 and C-493710 from 21. December 2011, para. 79.
 In N.S. the CJEU noted that in 2010 90% of all illegal immigrants in EU have crossed the border of the EU in Greece (para. 87).
 See judgment of the CJEU in case N.S. (C-411/10 from 21 December 2011, paras. 10., 12).
 Judgment of the Supreme Court in case I Up 26/2011 from 20 January 2011.
 Judgment of the Administrative Corut in case I U 687/2011-9 from 26. april 2011.
 Judgment of the Supreme Court in case I Up 226/2011 from 25 may 2011.
 Judgment of the CJEu in case C-19/08 from 29. January 2009, paras. 46-50.
 Judgment of the Supreme Court in cases : I Up 46/2010 from 25. February 2010, I Up 680/2011 from 1. December 2011 and I Up 702/2011 from 8. December 2011.

References: v. 
 Art. 3
 CJEU 
 CJEU 
 CJEU 
 CJEu