Skip to main content


Many asylum seekers entering the European Union (EU) cross more than one Member State border before lodging their asylum claims. In response, the EU adopted Dublin II to designate the point of first entry, rather than the point of application, as the State responsible for examining the claim. Unfortunately, this allocation of examination responsibilities overburdens States on the frontline of entry, such as Greece, and has exacerbated the systemic deficiencies in these states’ asylum systems. The Court of Justice of the European Union’s decision in the Joined Cases C-411/10 & C-493/10 helped clarify that a receiving state cannot transfer asylum seekers to the responsible state if they would be subjected to inhumane treatment there. Although this decision halted Dublin II transfers to states where fundamental rights risked being violated, the EU continues to struggle with an unbalanced distribution of asylum claims. Until the principle of solidarity is put into practice and more claims are shifted to lesser-burdened states, the EU will not meet its goal of creating a fair and effective Common European Asylum Policy.


File nameDate UploadedVisibilityFile size
8 Sep 2022
347 kB



  • Subject
    • Comparative and Foreign Law

    • Human Rights Law

    • Immigration Law

  • Journal title
    • Boston College International and Comparative Law Review

  • Volume
    • 37

  • Issue
    • 3

  • Pagination
    • E. Supp. 72

  • Date submitted

    8 September 2022