In this case the court of Cergy-Pontoise, before which the applicant challenged the extension of the Dublin transfer period from France to Italy, addressed a question to the Council of State. The court asked whether the extension to eighteen months of the time limit for the Dublin transfer of an applicant for international protection to the Member State responsible for examining his application, on the basis of a finding that the person has absconded, should be regarded as a decision that is subject of an independent appeal for annulment for excess of power or can this extension be contested only on the occasion of an appeal for excess of power against a subsequent decision and whose legality it conditions.

The Council held that if the Member State in whose territory the asylum seeker is staying has informed the Member State responsible for examining the application, before the expiry of the six-month period available to it to transfer this applicant, that it could not be done because the person concerned was absconding, the requested Member State remains responsible for examining the asylum application for a period of eighteen months, starting from the acceptance of the take-over, available to the Member State in whose territory the applicant is staying in order to proceed with his transfer. The extension of the transfer period, which results from the sole finding of the applicant's absconding has the effect of maintaining in force the decision to transfer to the authorities of the responsible State and does not imply the adoption of a new decision. This extension is therefore only one of the modalities of execution of the initial transfer decision and cannot be regarded as a decision subject to appeal.