In a ruling on Thursday 31 May (Case C-647/16), the Court of Justice of the EU found that, when a third country national travels to a member state after having made a request for asylum in another country of the European Union, the first state cannot decide to transfer that person to the second member state before that second state has agreed to the request to take that person back.
After having made a request for asylum in Germany, Adil Hassan, an Iraqi national, was arrested in France. Pursuant to the Dublin III Regulation (604/2013), the French authorities called on their German counterparts to take Adil Hassan back while deciding, that same day, to transfer him to Germany.
Adil Hassan challenged before the French courts the decision ordering his transfer to Germany. He argued that the decision had been taken and notified to him before the requested member state (i.e. Germany) had explicitly or implicitly replied to the French authorities’ request to take the Iraqi national back.
The Court rules in Mr Hassan’s favour. It holds that, from the wording, the history and the objective of the Dublin III Regulation, a transfer decision may be adopted and notified to the person concerned only after the requested member state has, implicitly or explicitly, agreed to take that person back.
According to the Court, the scope of the right of the person concerned to an effective remedy is liable to be restricted, since the transfer decision would be based only on the evidence and indications gathered by the requesting member state (in this case, France). (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)