According to the CJEU press release:

"On 26 January 2010, an application was made to the Conseil d'État (Council of State) (France) by two French associations, the Cimade and the GISTI, seeking annulment of the inter-ministerial circular of 3 November 2009 concerning the ATA (allocation temporaire d'attente – temporary tideover allowance). A subsistence benefit, that allowance is paid monthly to asylum seekers throughout the period of examination of their application. Those two associations maintain that the circular is contrary to the objectives of Directive 2003/9 because it excludes asylum seekers from enjoyment of the ATA where, pursuant to the Dublin II Regulation, France calls upon another Member State, which it considers responsible for the examination of the claim of the persons concerned. The Conseil d'État decided to make a reference to the Court concerning the interpretation of the relevant provisions of European Union law. The Court replies, first, that a Member State in receipt of an asylum claim is obliged to grant the minimum conditions for the reception of asylum seekers even to an asylum seeker in respect of whom it decides to call upon another Member State, as the State responsible for the application, to take charge of him or take him back. The Court states that the obligation on the Member State in receipt of an asylum claim to grant those minimum reception conditions begins when the applicant ‘applies for asylum’, even if that State is not the Member State responsible for the examination of the application for asylum pursuant to the criteria laid down by the Dublin II Regulation. Directive 2003/9 provides for only one category of asylum seekers, encompassing all third-country nationals and stateless persons who apply for asylum. Accordingly, those minimum reception conditions must be granted not only to asylum seekers present in the territory of the responsible Member State, but also to those who remain pending the determination of the responsible Member State, a procedure which can last for a number of months. The Court also notes that the obligation on a Member State in receipt of an asylum claim to grant the minimum reception conditions applies only to those asylum seekers who are allowed to remain in the territory of the Member State concerned as asylum seekers. In that regard, the Court considers that European Union law allows asylum seekers to remain not only in the territory of the State in which the application for asylum is being examined but also, until the actual transfer of the persons concerned, in the territory of the Member State in which that application was lodged. The Court holds, second, that the obligation to guarantee the minimum reception conditions for asylum seekers applies from the moment the application is lodged and throughout the procedure for determining the Member State responsible until the actual transfer of the applicant by the requesting State. The Court states in that regard that only the actual transfer of the asylum seeker by the requesting Member State brings to an end both the procedure before that State and its liability to bear the financial burden of the reception conditions. The Court notes that the minimum reception conditions can be reduced or withdrawn in situations, listed in the directive, where the asylum seeker does not comply with the reception rules laid down by the Member State concerned (for example, where the person concerned fails to appear for personal interviews at which his claim is to be examined)."