Dismantling the Dublin System: M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece

in European Journal of Migration and Law
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.


Have Institutional Access?

Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



The Dublin Regulation establishes criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for asylum lodged in the European Union by a third-country national. The system is based on the presumption that Member States may be considered ‘safe countries’ for asylum seekers, for which reason transfers from one Member State to another are supposed not to violate the principle of non-refoulement. The fact that all Member States have acceded to the 1951 Refugee Convention and to the European Convention on Human Rights, that they share a pledge to establish a Common European Asylum System comprising harmonized protection standards, and that, as members of the Union, are obliged to respect and protect fundamental rights, constitute the unspoken premises on which the supposition rests. However, the Dublin Regulation does not establish whether the presumption should be considered absolute or rebuttable, and how and when, in the latter situation, it should be deemed refuted in the individual case. How the ‘principle of refutability’ has come into being in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights constitutes the focus of the present analysis. The review of the Strasbourg jurisprudence is accompanied by an assessment of the diverging practices that have proliferated across the EU in this regard. The paper concludes with some reflections on the impact of the M.S.S. judgement on the forthcoming reform of the Dublin system.

Dismantling the Dublin System: M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece

in European Journal of Migration and Law




EC Tampere 15–16 Oct. 1999Presidency Conclusions para. 13 available at: <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/tam_en.htm>.


See Nollsupra note 53 at 181–182.


For a similar reading see Mallia P. ‘Notes and Comments – Case of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece : A Catalyst in the Re-thinking of the Dublin II Regulation’ (2011) 30 RSQ pp. 107–128 at p. 125 ff.

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 44 44 27
Full Text Views 24 24 24
PDF Downloads 4 4 4
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0