The applicant, a national of Somalia, requested international protection on 2 August 2024 after lodging an asylum application in Poland on 7 May 2024. On 6 August 2024, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) requested the Polish authorities to take back the applicant under the Dublin III Regulation, which they agreed to do. Consequently, on 18 October 2024, BAMF rejected the application for international protection and issued a removal order to Poland.

On 6 November 2024, the applicant appealed the decision, which has not been decided on the day of the decision of the Administrative Court Bremen. The applicant also requested the order of interim measures and the suspensive effect of the appeal regarding the removal order, arguing that she will be chain deported to Belarus. The court rejected the application on 17 January 2025.

On 28 May 2025, BAMF informed the Polish authorities that the applicant absconded, with the result that the 18-month transfer period under Article 29(2) of the Dublin III Regulation applied until 17 July 2026.

On 14 July 2026, the applicant arrived at the initial reception centre and was arrested by the police. The applicant remained in detention pending removal. BAMF informed the Polish authorities on the same day that the applicant was available again and that the transfer period extended in accordance with Article 46(2) second subparagraph of the AMMR by three months and thus would end on 14 October 2026.

On 24 July 2026, the applicant requested the suspensive effect of the appeal against the removal order and alternatively interim measures to stop the removal, arguing that the time-limit for her transfer to Poland expired in the meantime and that Germany was now responsible for the processing of her asylum application. The applicant further argued that under Article 84(2) of the AMMR the provisions of the Dublin III Regulation - and not those of the AMMR - are applicable and that Article 84(2) must be interpreted that the continued applicability of the Dublin III Regulation relates to the entire procedure, including the methods of transfer. Thus, the applicant argued that the transfer period already expired on 8 February 2025, or by 17 July 26 at the latest, since the applicant's request for interim measures was aimed only against the removal order issued under national law and not against the transfer decision issued under EU law. In that case, a negative urgent decision does not lead to a new start of the transfer period. Furthermore, the applicant argued that even if the AMMR was to apply, the conditions under Article 46(2) second subparagraph would not be met, as the provision requires a prior extension of the time limit, which did not happen. Lastly, the applicant argued that the removal order was unlawful, as it did not contain a transfer decision under Art 42(1) of the AMMR.

The Administrative Court of Bremen rejected the application as unfounded. The court held that, after also considering the entry into force of the AMMR at the relevant time of the court decision, the removal order of the BAMF remains lawful. The court held that the Asylum Procedure Regulation (APR) does not in principle apply to the asylum applications lodged before 12 June 2026, as it was in the present case, and the same applies to national provisions. However, these transitional provisions were not relevant here. The court found that the responsibility determining- and transfer procedure precedes the procedure for examining the application for international protection and therefore does not fall under the scope of the APR pursuant to Article 2(5) of the AMMR or Article 3(9) of the APR.

The court held that the requirements under Section 34a(1) of the Asylum Act are met, and that the required transfer decision is contained in the BAMF decision of 18 October 2024. The court found that Poland remains the responsible Member State for conducting the asylum procedure and that the transfer can be carried out.

The Administrative Court of Bremen further stated that in cases where the determination of responsibility procedure was terminated before 12 June 2026 and a removal order was issued – as in the present case – no separate transfer decision is required. The court held that under the legal framework in force until the end of 11 June 2026, a removal order under Article 34a(1) first sentence of the Asylum Act constituted at the same time the transfer decision under Article 26 of the Dublin III Regulation and the national basis for its compulsory enforcement. Thus, the removal order already contained a binding decision on the transfer of the applicant to Poland, which continues to apply. The court further held that EU law does not preclude this either, as the transfer decision under Article 42(1) of the AMMR terminates the determination procedure between the Member States and implements its outcome in a binding manner against the applicant. Therefore, it determines that and to which Member State the person is transferred and is the subject of the judicial remedy under Article 43 of the AMMR. The court held that Article 42(2) and (4) of the AMMR ensure that the applicant is informed in a written and comprehensible manner of the transfer decision and of the possible legal remedies. The court found that the removal order in the BAMF decision of 18 October 2024 satisfied these requirements, since it clearly stated that the applicant is to be transferred to Poland for the purpose of carrying out the asylum procedure. Thus, it fulfils the essential function assigned to the transfer decision by Article 42 of the AMMR.

The court held that, considering the relevant criteria for determining the responsible Member State and the procedural steps effectively carried out before 12 June 2026, Poland is the Member State responsible for carrying out the applicant's asylum procedure. The court stated that it follows from Article 84(2) of the AMMR that the determination of the responsible Member State is only based on the Dublin III Regulation regarding the relevant responsibility criteria. Thereafter, for an application for international protection registered before 12 June 2026, as in this case, the Member State responsible is determined in accordance with the criteria laid down in the Dublin III Regulation. The court further stated that Article 84(2) of the AMMR must be interpreted as meaning that the reference is limited to the responsibility criteria set out in Chapter III (Articles 7 to 15) of the Dublin III Regulation. It does not entail the continued applicability of the procedural provisions of the Dublin III Regulation to applications registered before 12 June 2026. This is also supported by the wording of the provision, as it expressly refers only to its ‘criteria' and does not contain a general continuation order. The court stated that the argument, according to which Article 84(2) of the AMMR covers all the conditions, requirements and conditions of the Dublin III Regulation which may in any way affect responsibility, is not convincing, as it ignores the fact that almost any time limit and procedural requirement of the Dublin III Regulation may have an indirect impact on responsibility. The court further reasoned that the transfer period laid down in Article 29 of the Dublin III Regulation is not a criterion for determining the Member State responsible, but rather the transfer of responsibility is a subsequent legal consequence of the failure to comply.

The court continued that the above mentioned is also supported by the systematic connection with Article 83 of the AMMR, according to which the Dublin III Regulation was repealed with effect from 12 June 2026. Article 84(2) of the AMMR constitutes a limited exception to the new legal framework.

The court concluded that the responsibility of Poland did not transfer to Germany because of the expiry of the transfer period, stating that the effective extension of the time limit until 12 June 2026 under Article 29 of the Dublin III Regulation was not affected by the entry into force of the AMMR. The start, interruption and extension of the transfer period are therefore based on the Dublin III Regulation for the period before the end of 11 June 2026. By contrast, the legal consequences of the applicant's reappearance after 12 June 2026 are determined in accordance with Article 46(2) second subparagraph of the AMMR. The court found that the transfer period began initially with the acceptance of the transfer request by Poland on 8 August 2024. The six-month transfer period would therefore have ended on 8 February 2025. Before the expiry of that period, the applicant appealed on 6 November 2024 and, at the same time, requested the suspensive effect of the appeal, which the court rejected. The court concluded that this led to the new start of the transfer period under Article 29(1) first subparagraph of the Dublin III Regulation.

The Administrative Court of Bremen referred to the latest jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice on the Dublin III Regulation and stated that an appeal alleging only a domestic obstacle to the implementation of the transfer does not restart the transfer period under the Dublin III regulation. Moreover, it is necessary for the appeal to cover the legality of the inadmissibility decision based on the responsibility of another Member State. The court however concluded that the present case does so, stating that the applicant not only invoked national obstacles to deportation, but relied on the risk of chain deportation to Belarus. Thus, the judicial review also covered compliance with the rules of responsibility and procedure laid down in the Dublin III Regulation, including whether, in view of the alleged risk of chain deportation, the transfer was compatible with Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principle of non-refoulement. The court held that with the reappearance of the applicant on 14 July 26, the BAMF has a period of three months to carry out the transfer, thus until 14 October 2026 under Article 46(2) second subparagraph of the AMMR. The court highlighted that Article 84(2) of the AMMR does not result in the continued application of the procedural provisions of the Dublin III Regulation and that the legal consequences of a situation that occurred after the change of the legal framework are therefore based on the AMMR. In addition, all the criteria under Article 46(2) second subparagraph of the AMMR are met, as the applicant was available to the German authorities again since 14 July 2026. At that time, only three days and therefore less than three months remained from the transfer period running until 17 July 2026.

Thus, the court concluded that Poland remains the responsible Member State at the time of the judicial decision, that there was no transfer of responsibility to Germany and that the transfer may be carried out.