The Upper Tribunal again finds that Dublin returns to Malta can go ahead:
(i) There have been significant developments in Malta during recent years. While there may be imperfections in the Maltese asylum decision making processes, these are not sufficient to preclude returns under the Dublin Regulation and, in particular, do not amount to a breach of Article 18 of the EU Charter.
(ii) While Article 18 of the EU Charter confers rights of a procedural nature, the evidence does not establish that these will be infringed in the event of either of the Applicants pursuing a fresh asylum claim in Malta.
(iii) The limitations of the mechanisms available under Maltese law for challenging refusal of asylum decisions do not infringe Article 18 of the EU Charter.
(iv) In judicial review, decisions of the Administrative Court are not binding on the Upper Tribunal: Secretary of State for Justice v RB UKUT 454 (AAC) applied.
(v) Per curiam : Article 18 of the EU Charter provides an avenue for challenging transfer decisions under the Dublin Regulation.
(vi) Per curiam : Where a Dublin Regulation transfer decision is challenged under Article 18 of the EU Charter, the ECHR “flagrant breach” standard does not apply. Rather, the test is whether there is a real risk of a breach of Article 18.
More Latin, and in the supposedly clear head note too. I leave this here:
— BarProBonoUnit CEO (@BPBUCEO) October 15, 2016
By the by, I think the reference to the appellants’ cases being advanced “without distinction” is a reference to the similarity of the cases rather than the quality of the advocacy (para 1).