The case concerns the applicability of art. 29 par 2 Dublin Regulation in the case of church asylum (German churches grant protection to refugees facing difficult situations, called "hardship cases." They then present a request to BAMF for further examination. The main aim is to prevent imminent deportations of refugees into dangerous situations. Read here)

The defendant raised the following question to justify this reason for admission: "Whether an asylum seeker who is in the Dublin procedure and who goes to the church asylum is to be regarded as volatile within the meaning of Art. 29 Para. 2 Sentence 2 Dublin III-VO and the transfer period is thus extended to 18 months?"

The Court followed the CJEU C-136/17 and concluded that the question raised by the defendant can easily be answered to the effect that an asylum seeker who has gone to church asylum is not volatile within the meaning of Art. 29 Para. 2 Sentence 2 Dublin III-VO if his summonable address is known and the church asylum does not prevent the transfer from being carried out in legal or factual terms.

It would also seriously contradict the meaning and purpose of the Dublin regulations if the extension of the transfer period under Art. 29 Para. 2 Sentence 2 of the Dublin III Regulation would already occur if a Member State only waived the transfer because: an asylum seeker has left his home with an intention to flee, but the transfer is still possible due to the lack of obstacles to enforcement. Contrary to the defendant's view, the mere fact that the asylum seeker went to the church asylum with the intention of avoiding the transfer cannot be sufficient to assume that he was fleeting within the meaning of Art. 29 para. 2 sentence 2 of the Dublin III Regulation.