Turn on more accessible mode
Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Turn off Animations
26/03/2021
The CJEU held that the Dublin III Regulation does not preclude a Member State from adopting preparatory measures for the transfer, during an appeal against a transfer decision.

ECLI
ECLI:EU:C:2021:258
Input Provided By
EUAA Reception Network
Other Source/Information
Type
Order
Original Documents
Relevant Legislative Provisions
Dublin Regulation III (Regulation (EU) No 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 IP); Recast Reception Conditions Directive (Directive 2013/33/EU laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection)(recast RCD) and/or RCD 2003/9/CE
Reference
European Union, Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU], VW v Agence fédérale pour l’accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil), C‑92/21, ECLI:EU:C:2021:258, 26 March 2021. Link redirects to the English summary in the EUAA Case Law Database.
Permanent link to the case
https://caselaw.euaa.europa.eu/pages/viewcaselaw.aspx?CaseLawID=1803
Case history
Other information
Abstract

The case concerns a reference for a preliminary ruling by the Liege Labour Law Court asking the CJEU to interpret Article 27 of the Dublin III Regulation.


The national proceedings in which this request originated concerned the legality of a measure conferring the applicant, VW, a national of Guinea, a place in a specific reception structure in which accommodated persons receive assistance in order to prepare for the transfer to the Member State responsible for examining their application for international protection. The applicant had requested asylum in Belgium and pending a decision on his application, he was accommodated in a Red Cross reception center in Bierset, Belgium. The authorities applied to the Spanish authorities for a takeover, which was accepted. In the light of the transfer decision, Fedasil allocated the applicant to a specific reception facility in Mouscron (Belgium), so that he could receive the assistance provided for the organization of his transfer to the Member State responsible.


The CJEU gave priority to the case, in accordance with Article 53(3) of the Rules of Procedure, and issued an order. The CJEU held that the allocation to a specific facility by Fedasil must not be considered a measure for the execution of the transfer but as a preparatory measure for the execution procedure. The Court considered that the adoption of preparatory measures for the transfer appears to be consistent with Article 29 of the Dublin III Regulation, which provides that the transfer of applicants from the requesting Member State to the Member State responsible must be carried out as soon as materially possible and at the latest within six months from the acceptance by the other State.


The CJEU also considered that Article 27 of the Dublin III Regulation must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from adopting, with regard to an applicant who has lodged an appeal against a decision to transfer him to another Member State within the meaning of Article 26(1) of that Regulation, measures preparatory to that transfer, such as the allocation of a place in a specific reception facility in which the persons accommodated receive support to prepare for their transfer.


Country of Decision
European Union
Court Name
EU: Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU]
Case Number
C‑92/21
Date of Decision
26/03/2021
Country of Origin
Guinea
Keywords
Dublin procedure
Reception/Accommodation
Source
CURIA