According to the contribution of the EASO Courts and Tribunals Network:

By its decision of 8 July 2019 the Police of the Czech Republic detained the applicant under Art. 28(2) of the Dublin III Regulation in order to secure transfer procedures in accordance with the said Regulation as it was established that on 7 May 2019 the applicant had made an application for international protection in Bulgaria. The Ministry of Interior sent a take back request concerning the applicant to Bulgaria on 11 July 2019 and on 16 July 2019 Bulgarian authorities accepted the request. On 29 July 2019 the Ministry of Interior issued the transfer decision. The transfer of the applicant to Bulgaria was scheduled on 26 August 2019, which was the day preceding the expiry of the six-week period stipulated by Art. 28(3) of the Dublin IIII Regulation for carrying out the transfer of the detained person. However, by its inappropriate behaviour, for which the applicant was excluded from the flight to Bulgaria, the applicant intentionally avoided the transfer. The applicant was subsequently returned to the detention facility where he lodged another application for international protection. By its decision of 29 August 2019 the Ministry of Interior issued a new decision concerning detention of the applicant to secure his new transfer to Bulgaria. The applicant challenged last detention decision before the Municipal Court of Prague which however dismissed his action for annulment.

The applicant lodged a cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court claiming that his detention exceeded the above mentioned six-week period stipulated by Art. 28(3) of the Dublin III Regulation.

The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the complaint. It emphasized that such an interpretation which would allow the applicant to benefit from his own wrong doing by relying on the alleged expiry of the aforesaid period for the transfer, which the applicant intentionally avoided, would deprive Dublin III Regulation of its purpose which is to secure the transfer of the applicant to the Member State responsible for examining his application for international protection. Also in the case at hand the Supreme Administrative Court referred to CJEU’s judgment of 13 September 2017, Khir Amayry, C-60/16, and by way of analogy confirmed that the periods set out for the detention in the national legislation could be applied in the case at hand as the overall duration of the detention did not go beyond the period of time which was necessary for the purposes of the transfer procedure.