The case concerned a Dublin transfer to Italy, and where the period for the transfer expired. The legal question is related to the cost of the proceedings and who must settle those costs in a Dublin procedure.

In fact, the asylum application was rejected as inadmissible and the transfer to Italy was ordered, as member state responsible to process the application. by decision of 7 September 2022, the Dublin transfer was annulled, and Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) did not contest the decision. At the end of the expiry period for the Dublin transfer, the transfer decision was cancelled and the responsibility to process the application was transferred to Germany.

The Regional Administrative Court of Giessen administrative court ruled that in such a situation the costs of the proceedings lie with the BAMF because the reasons for the expiry of the transfer period lies solely on the competence of the BAMF. The court stated that it is irrelevant whether the applicant was unsuccessful in his proceedings since the event in question is due to the expiry of a fixed period of time, precisely for the Dublin transfer.

The court stated that although the BAMF is not itself implementing the Dublin transfer but the foreigner and the police authorities, however BAMF has the duty to oversee and control the implementation of the Dublin transfer, to examine its duration and check whether there are reasons to lift the measure. The court considered that the expiry of the transfer period can not be attributed to the applicant or because of the rejected of the application for interim measure, neither for other reasons as the applicant can not comply with the measure by himself. The Dublin III Regulation does not provide for a voluntary return, on the contrary each transfer is monitored and implemented by state authorities, even if the transfer is carried out by the applicant motion and without coercion from the administration. Moreover, entry into the competent Member State without the involvement of public authorities does not follow from other EU law either.

The court noted that there were no particular circumstances in the individual case, which could have led to responsibility of the applicant for the expiry of the transfer period, such as  for example if the applicant had escaped the transfer by flight.

The court concluded that BAMF is responsible to cover the costs of proceedings, including legal representation, because the reasons for expiry of the transfer are attributable to it.