Construção de uma responsabilidade europeia além-fronteiras

The suppression of internal border controls has led the European Union to establish a mechanism for determining the Member State responsible for examining each asylum application, with the main intention of deterring asylum seekers from lodging multiple applications and guaranteeing that it will be assessed by one of the States – the Dublin System. Even though it holds on a variety of criteria, the most commonly used is the country of first entrance in the EU. The growing migrating flows coming mainly from Northern Africa have thus resulted in an incommensurable burden over the border countries. Gradually, countries like Greece, Bulgaria and Italy have lost capability of providing adequate relief to all asylum seekers and the records of fundamental rights violations related to the provision of housing and basic needs or inhuman detention conditions started piling up. To prevent asylum seekers who had already displaced themselves to other Member States from being transferred back to countries where their human dignity is questionable, the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice have developed a solid jurisprudence determining that when there is a risk of serious breach of fundamental rights all transfers to that country must halt, especially when it is identified with systemic deficiencies in the asylum system and procedures. This reflexion will go through the jurisprudence that influenced very recent legislative amendments, in order to identify which elements form part of the obligation not to transfer under the Dublin System. At last, we will critically analyze the new rising obligation, that has clearly proven insufficient in light of the international fundamental rights framework that the Member States and the EU are bound to respect, proposing substantial amendments with a view to reach a future marked by high solidarity and global responsibility from the European Union.