¹ Regulation 562/2006, of the European Parliament and the Council of 15 March 2006 Establishing a Community Code on the Rules Governing the Movement of Persons Across Borders (Schengen Borders Code), 2006 O.J. (L 105) 1, 1–32 [hereinafter Schengen Borders Code].Google Scholar

² See Grundgesetz [GG] [Basic Law], art. 16a, para. 2, sentence 1, translation at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/index.html; see also Asylgesetz [AslyG] [Asylum Act], Sept. 2, 2008, Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl I] at 1798, § 1, para. 1, no. 1–2, § 13, para. 1–2, § 18, para. 2, no. 1, § 26a, para. 1, sentence 1 (Ger.).Google Scholar

³ For this “second track” of the right of asylum, see Asylgesetz [AslyG] [Asylum Act], Sept. 2, 2008, BGBl. I at 1798, §§ 1 para. 1, no. 2, 3, 4, 13 para. 1–2 (Ger.). See also Directive 2011/95, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on Standards for the Qualification of Third-Country Nationals or Stateless Persons as Beneficiaries of International Protection, for a Uniform Status for Refugees or for Persons Eligible for Subsidiary Protection, and for the Content of the Protection Granted, 2011 O.J. (L 337) 9, 14.Google Scholar

⁴ See Regierungsentwurf [Cabinet Draft], Deutscher Bundestags: Drucksachen [BT] 18/7311, http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/18/073/1807311.pdf (Ger.) (presenting a response of the federal government to a small inquiry) [hereinafter Response].Google Scholar

⁵ See European Commission Press Release IP/16/585, The Commission, Back to Schengen: Commission Proposed a Complete Restoration of the Schengen System (Mar. 4, 2016), http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-585_en.htm.Google Scholar

⁶ See Regulation 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, 2013 O.J. (L 180) 31–59 [hereinafter Dublin-III-REG].Google Scholar

⁷ See Proposal for a Regulation 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), at art. 21, para. 4, COM (2016) 270 final (May 4, 2016). See also Dublin-III-REG, supra note 6, art. 20, para. 4.Google Scholar

⁸ See Dublin-III-REG, supra note 6, arts. 8–10.Google Scholar

⁹ See Directive 2013/32 of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 June 2013 on Joint Procedures for Recognising and Denying International Protection, 2013 O.J. (L 180) 60, 60–95, art. 9, para. 1, sentence 1.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Proposal for a Council Regulation Establishing the 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, COM (2001) 447 final (July 26, 2001), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:JOC_2001_304_E_0192_01 (proposing the regulation on the assumption that it does not contradict the genesis of Dublin-II-REG), with Roman Lehner, Grenze zu dank Art. 20 Abs. 4 Dublin-III-VO? Eine Replik, Verfassungsblog (Feb. 26, 2016), http://verfassungsblog.de/grenze-zu-dank-art-20-abs-4-dublin-iii-vo-eine-replik/. See Peukert, Alexander, Christian Hillgruber, Ulrich Foerste, & Holm Putzke, Nochmals: Die Politik offener Grenzen ist nicht rechtskonform, Verfassungsblog (Mar. 2, 2016), http://verfassungsblog.de/nochmals-die-politik-offener-grenzen-ist-nicht-rechtskonform/. A contrary view of the legislative body of the Union is not documented to the extent that is evident. The Commission alone cannot reinterpret the Dublin System that was legislated on their request by the Council in 2003, and then by the Parliament in 2013.Google Scholar

¹¹ 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 Application for International Protection Lodged in One of the Member States by a Third-Country National or a Stateless Person (Recast), at 3, COM (2008) 820 final (Dec. 3, 2008); see also Dublin-III-REG (showing the increased efficiency of the modus operandi of the Dublin-II-REG).Google Scholar

¹² Session of the European Council–Conclusion, EUCO 1/16, ST 1 2016 INIT (Feb. 18 and 19, 2016) 4. That also applies, whenever the entry into the European Union is made via a Member State such as Greece—where no return can be made due to the systemic shortfalls of the local asylum system. For the meaning of this circumstance of the responsibility, see Dublin-III-REG, supra note 6, art. 3, para. 2. For the criminal liability of the smuggling third-state nationals into such a Member State, see Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice] Feb. 26, 2015, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 2274.Google Scholar

¹³ See Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community, art. 72, Dec. 13, 2007, 2007 O.J. (C 306) 1 [hereinafter Treaty of Lisbon]; see also id. art. 23.Google Scholar

¹⁴ At external Schengen borders that are simultaneously Dublin internal borders—specifically Slovakia/Hungary to Croatia, as well as Hungary and Bulgaria—Art. 13 paragraph 4 of the Schengen Borders Code directly applies. See Code, Schengen Borders, supra note 1, art. 13, para. 4. See also id. art. 28, and art. 2, no. 8–10 and 13. On German law, see Aufenthaltsgesetz [AufenthG] [Residence Act], Feb. 25, 2008, Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl I] at 162, § 13, para. 2, sentence 1, which is in clear contrast to mere border crossing under § 13, para. 2, sentence 3.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Anna Lübbe, Ist der deutsche Transit österreichisches Staatsgebiet?, Verfassungsblog (Mar. 7, 2016), http://verfassungsblog.de/ist-der-deutsche-transit-oesterreichisches-hoheitsgebiet/ [hereinafter Anna Lübbe]; see Hruschka, Constantin, Rückkehr zum Recht an der deutsch-österreichischen Grenze? Zur Zuständigkeit für an der deutschen Grenze gestellte Asylanträge, (Mar. 7, 2016), http://fluechtlingsforschung.net/ruckkehr-zum-recht-an-der-deutsch-osterreichischen-grenze/.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See Proposal for a Council Regulation Establishing the 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, COM (2001) 447 final (July 26, 2001).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Christian Filzwieser & Andrea Sprung, Dublin III-Verordnung, Kommentar, art. 20, k. 17 (Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag 2014) (finding “actually sensible, further teleological interpretation” as hardly compatible with the “precise term ‘territory‘”).Google Scholar

¹⁸ For an answer from the Federal Government, see Response, supra note 4, at 2. See also Asylum Act § 18, para. 2, no. 2 (enabling a swift return to the state that is responsible for the asylum application under immediate consideration of the Dublin-III-REG); see also Asylgesetz [AslyG] [Asylum Act], Sept. 2, 2008, BGBl I at 1798, § 18, para. 2, no. 2; Dublin-III-REG, supra note 6, art. 20, para. 4; Regierungsentwurf [Cabinet Draft], Deutscher Bundestags: Drucksache [BT] 16/5065, at 215 (Ger.), with Dublin-III_REG, supra note 6, art. 20, para. 4.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Dublin-III-REG, supra note 6, art. 20, para. 4, subpara. 1, sentence 2.Google Scholar

²⁰ See Sharifi v. Italy, App. No. 16643/09, (Oct. 21, 2014), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/; Holger Winkelmann, Günter Renner, Jan Bergmann & Klaus Dienelt, Ausländerrecht, § 18 Asylum Procedure Act, para. 23 (10th ed. 2013).Google Scholar

²¹ Dublin-III-REG, supra note 6, art. 20, para. 4, subpara. 2.Google Scholar

²² See id. art. 8–11, 16.Google Scholar

²³ See Anna Lübbe, supra note 14.Google Scholar

²⁴ Incidentally, all Member States along the “Balkan route” would naturally have to be informed ahead of time of the hitherto absent application of Art. 20 paragraph 4 of the Dublin-III-REG on the basis of Union loyalty. See Treaty of Lisbon art. 4, para. 3. This would bring a definitive end to the policy of “waving through.”Google Scholar

²⁵ Directive 2013/32, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on Common Procedures for Granting and Withdrawing International Protection (recast), 2013 O.J. (L 180) 60; see Directive 2013/33, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 Laying Down Standards for the Reception of Applicants for International Protection (Recast), 2013 O.J. (L 180) 96; Directive 2011/95 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 Dec 2011 on Standards for the Qualification of Third-Country Nationals or Stateless Persons as Beneficiaries of International Protection, for a Uniform Status for Refugees or for Persons Eligible for Subsidiary Protection, and for the Content of the Protection Granted (recast), 2011 O.J. (L 337) 9.Google Scholar

²⁶ This also explains why Directive 2013/32 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on Common Procedures for Granting and Withdrawing International Protection (Recast), 2013 O.J. (L 180) 60, art. 8, para. 1, encourages Member States along the external border, to already support applications for international protection, if a willingness for such is discernible merely in transit zones.Google Scholar

²⁷ See The Convention Determining the State Responsible for Examining Applications for Asylum Lodged in One of the Member States of the European Communities – Dublin Convention, Preamble, Aug. 19, 1997, 1997 O.J. (C 254) [hereinafter Dublin Convention]. For a memorandum of the Federal Government on the Dublin Convention, see Regierungsentwurf [Cabinet Draft], Deutscher Bundestags: Drucksache [BT] 12/6485 (Ger.) [hereinafter Cabinet Draft].Google Scholar

²⁸ See Dublin-III-REG, supra note 6, art. 15.Google Scholar

²⁹ See Directive 2013/32 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on Common Procedures for Granting and Withdrawing International Protection (Recast), 2013 O.J. (L 180) 60, art. 33, para. 2 (showing that in this case as well the Member States do not have to examine an application for protection in the case of an arrival from safe third states).Google Scholar

³⁰ See Anna Lübbe, supra note 15.Google Scholar

³¹ Contra Jürgen Bast & Christoph Möllers, Dem Freistaat zum Gefallen: über Udo Di Fabios Gutachten zur staatsrechtlichen Beurteilung der Flüchtlingskrise, Verfassungsblog, http://verfassungsblog.de/dem-freistaat-zum-gefallen-ueber-udo-di-fabios-gutachten-zur-staatsrechtlichen-beurteilung-der-fluechtlingskrise/ (last visited Mar. 7, 2016).Google Scholar

³² Cabinet Draft, supra note 17.Google Scholar

³³ This decision, made on Aug. 21, 2015, was communicated via a tweet by the BAMF. See BAMF (@BAMF_Dialog), Twitter (Aug. 25, 2014, 4:30 AM) https://twitter.com/bamf_dialog/status/636138495468285952.Google Scholar

³⁴ See Deutschland wendet Dublin-Verfahren wieder für Syrer an, Deutsche Welle (Nov. 10, 2015), http://www.dw.com/de/deutschland-wendet-dublin-verfahren-wieder-f%C3%BCr-syrer-an/a-18841749 (last visited on Mar. 7, 2016) (showing that the BAMF, since Oct. 21, 2015 no longer “generally makes use of its right to act sovereignly on its own”, but rather “in a continuous process,” checks whether the responsibility exists for a different Member State as per Dublin-III-REG).Google Scholar

³⁵ Heiko Maas, Wer das Recht wirklich schwächt, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Jan. 20, 2016), http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/fluechtlingskrise/gastbeitrag-von-justizminister-heiko-maas-14041595.html.Google Scholar

³⁶ Cf. Research Section of the German Bundestag, elaboration on Nov. 26, 2105, entry of asylum seekers from safe third countries, Az.: WD 3 - 3000 - 299/15, p. 7 under 2.4.Google Scholar

³⁷ See Case C-4/11, Germany v. Puid, paras. 29, 33 (Nov. 14, 2013), http://curia.europa.eu/.Google Scholar

³⁸ Filzwieser, supra note 17, art. 17 (Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag 2014). The same applies to entry permits according to Art. 13, paragraph 1, first sentence in conjunction with Art. 5, paragraph 4, lit. c of the Schengen Borders Code on “humanitarian grounds,” as long as one sees the rule of exception as applicable the permitting reasons are drawn from the reasons for protection of the laws of asylum. Schengen Borders Code, supra note 1, art. 13, para. 1, sentence 1, art. 4, para. 4, lit. c.Google Scholar

³⁹ See Joined Cases C-411/10 & C-493/10, N. S. vs. Sec'y of State for the Home Dep't, para. 83 (Dec. 21, 2011), http://curia.europa.eu/.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Response, supra note 4, at 2.Google Scholar

⁴¹ The Federal Government acted inconsistently on this when it no longer invoked the right to sole sovereign action under Art. 17, paragraph 1 of Dublin-III-REG, yet at the same time a ministers' order on a national legal base was meant to yield the same result. See Dublin-III-REG, supra note 6, art. 17, para. 1.Google Scholar

⁴² See Code, Schengen Borders, supra note 1, art. 13, para. 1; see also Aufenthaltsgesetz [AufenthG] [Residence Act], Feb. 25, 2008, BGBl. I at 162, § 14, para. 1, § 15, para. 1; Asylgesetz [AslyG] [Asylum Act], Sept. 2, 2008, BGBl I at 1798, § 18, para. 2, no. 1.Google Scholar