Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
25/10/2017
CJEU ruled on the effect of the expiry of the six-month period available to a Member State under the Dublin III

ECLI
Input Provided By
EUAA Asylum Report
Type
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)
Reference
European Union, Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU], Majid Shiri v Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl, Case C-201/16 ECLI:EU:C:2017:805, 25 October 2017. 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=32
Case history
Other information
Abstract
Majid Shiri, an Iranian national, has brought a challenge before the Austrian courts in relation to the decision refusing his application for international protection in Austria and his removal to Bulgaria. Mr Shiri sclaimed that Mr Shiri submits that, pursuant to the Dublin III Regulation, Austria is now responsible for examining his application because he was not transferred to Bulgaria within a period of six months from the Bulgarian authorities’ agreement to take him back. The Court ruled that, where the transfer does not take place within the six-month time limit, responsibility is transferred automatically to the Member State which requested that charge be taken of the person concerned (in this instance, Austria), without it being necessary for the Member State responsible (in this instance, Bulgaria) to refuse to take charge of, or take back, that person. In addition, the Court holded that an applicant for international protection can rely on the expiry of the six-month period, irrespective of whether that period expired before or after the transfer decision was adopted. The Member States are obliged to provide in this regard for an effective and rapid remedy. The Court also stated that the right, provided for by Austrian legislation, to plead circumstances subsequent to the adoption of the transfer decision, in an action brought against that decision, amounts to an effective and rapid remedy enabling the expiry of the transfer period to be relied upon.
Country of Decision
European Union
Court Name
EU: Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU]
Case Number
Case C-201/16 ECLI:EU:C:2017:805
Date of Decision
25/10/2017
Country of Origin
Keywords
Dublin procedure
Source
CURIA
Other Source/Information
Press Release No 111/17