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 that granted the applicant, VW, a national of Guinea, a place in a specific reception structure where persons are accommodated and receive assistance 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 centre in Bierset, Belgium. The authorities requested that the Spanish authorities take charge of the applicant, which was accepted. In light of the transfer decision, Fedasil altered the applicant's place of reception, by way of compulsory assignment, to a specialised reception facility in Mouscron (Belgium), so that he could receive the assistance provided for the organisation of his transfer to the Member State responsible. The applicant brought interim proceedings against that decision before the Labour Court in Liege (Tribunal du Travail de Liège) and subsequently a substantive appeal against Fedasil's decision.

The Labour Court in Liege noted that Article 27 III of the Dublin Regulation guarantees an effective remedy against a decision refusing to leave to remain combined with an order to leave the territory; however, national law did not foresee that appealing an order to leave the territory automatically suspends it.  In this context, the referring court questioned whether and, if so, in what circumstances an appeal against a transfer decision has suspensory effect. It noted that if such an effect were recognised, the appeal would temporarily prevent the applicant from being transferred to another Member State and make it premature to move him to a specialised centre in preparation for transfer. Two questions were referred to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling.

The CJEU gave priority to the case, in accordance with Article 53(3) of the Rules of Procedure and issued an order. After replying to the second question, the court declared the first question inadmissible.

The second question concerned whether Article 27 of the Dublin III Regulation is to be interpreted to preclude a Member State from adopting measures preparatory to such a Dublin transfer, such as the allocation of a place in a specialised reception facility where those accommodated receive support in preparing for their transfer, in relation to an applicants who have appealed a Dublin transfer decision to another Member State.

The CJEU held that Article 27 of the Dublin III Regulation does not oblige Member States to provide in their law that the pursuit of a remedy shall automatically suspend its implementation. Citing the considerations in Ghezelbash (C‑63/15, 7 June 2016), the court noted that a transfer may therefore proceed without waiting for the appeal to be examined, provided that suspension has not been requested or the request for suspension has been refused.

Furthermore, the court ruled that the regulation did not prohibit the adoption of measures that, in themselves, do not constitute the commencement of the implementation of the transfer decision. In this respect, the CJEU ruled 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 possible and at the latest within six months from the acceptance by the other State. In connection to this, the court held that allocating the applicant to another facility in preparation for the transfer did not contravene the rights afforded under the regulation, nor was it contrary to Directive 2013/33 (recast Asylum Procedures Directive), nor should it be regarded as such as to influence the decision to be made on appeal against the transfer decision.