The case concerned IA, Moroccan applicant, concerning whom the Austrian authorities requested the Italian authorities to take him back under the Dublin Regulation, his application was further rejected as inadmissible and the transfer ordered to Italy. He contested the decision.  

Between 20 September 2017 and 6 October 2017, IA, at his request, received psychiatric care in a hospital in Vienna (Austria). The transfer of IA to Italy, which was scheduled for 23 October 2017, could not proceed because, between 6 October 2017 and 4 November 2017, IA was committed to the psychiatric department of a hospital in Vienna without his request. That committal was declared lawful by a district court in Vienna, initially on a provisional basis by a first order of 6 October 2017, then, until 17 November 2017, by a second order of 17 October 2017. That court authorised IA’s committal on the ground that, because of his mental illness, he constituted a serious and significant threat to himself and to others.

On 25 October 2017, the Austrian authorities informed the Italian authorities that, in accordance with Article 29(2) of the Dublin III Regulation, the time limit for IA’s transfer had been extended to 12 months because of his committal to a hospital psychiatric department. On 6 December 2017, IA was transferred to Italy by air under police escort and accompanied by a doctor. On 22 December 2017, IA lodged an application for asylum in Italy, which was granted on 24 April 2018. IA brought an action before the Federal Administrative Court challenging his transfer from Austria to Italy, on the ground that it had taken place after the expiry, on 2 November 2017, of the six-month period laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 29(1) of the Dublin III Regulation and was therefore unlawful, being out of time.

The Supreme Administrative Court decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Is imprisonment within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 29(2) of [the Dublin III Regulation] also to be understood as including committal – which has been declared lawful by a court – of the person concerned to the psychiatric ward of a hospital against or without his will (in this case on account of endangerment of self or others resulting from his mental illness)?

(2)      If the first question is answered in the affirmative:

(a)      Can the time limit laid down in the first sentence of Article 29(2) of the [Dublin III Regulation] in any case be extended to one year – with binding effect for the person concerned – in the event of imprisonment by the requesting Member State?

(b)      If not, for what period of time is an extension permissible, for example only for that period of time

–        that the detention actually lasted, or

–        that the imprisonment is likely to last in total, in relation to the date of informing the Member State responsible in accordance with Article 9(2) of [the Implementing Regulation], plus, if necessary, a reasonable period for the reorganisation of the transfer?’

The Court ruled that "the second sentence of Article 29(2) of the Dublin III Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘imprisonment’ referred to in that provision is not applicable to the non-voluntary committal of an asylum seeker to a hospital psychiatric department, which has been authorised by a judicial decision, on the ground that that person, due to a mental illness, is a serious danger to him- or herself or to society."