The administrative suspension, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, of the execution of a decision to transfer an asylum seeker to the Member State responsible does not have the effect of interrupting the six-month transfer period provided for by EU law, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled on Thursday, 22 September. Consequently, once this period has expired, the requesting Member State becomes responsible for examining the asylum application.
In this preliminary ruling (cases C-245/21 and C-248/21), the Court responded to a German court which had questions about the interpretation of Regulation (EU) 604/201, the so-called ‘Dublin III’ Regulation, in a case concerning the transfer of asylum seekers to Italy, which had been suspended due to the pandemic.
The Dublin III Regulation establishes the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third country national or a stateless person.
In 2019, three third country nationals had applied for asylum in Germany. As one of them had previously applied for international protection in Italy, where the other two had been registered as applicants for international protection after having entered illegally, the competent German authority had asked the Italian authorities to take them in, on the basis of the ‘Dublin III’ Regulation.
However, in February 2020, the Italian authorities informed the German authorities that transfers under this regulation were no longer taking place due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
In April 2020, the competent German authority therefore suspended the execution of the removal orders for the persons concerned until further notice.
However, in judgments of June and August 2020, the Verwaltungsgericht (German Administrative Court) annulled the decisions declaring the asylum applications of the three persons concerned inadmissible and ordered their deportation.
That court found that, even if Italy had been responsible for the examination of the asylum applications of the persons concerned, that responsibility had been transferred to Germany, since the transfer period provided for in the ‘Dublin III’ Regulation had expired as a result of the decisions to suspend transfers.
The referring court, seized of an appeal on a point of law against those judgments, wanted to know whether the decisions to suspend the implementation of the removal orders taken in respect of the persons concerned may have the effect of interrupting the time limit for transfer.
The Court of Justice of the EU answered that the transfer period provided for by the Dublin III Regulation is not interrupted when the competent authorities of a Member State adopt a revocable decision to suspend the implementation of a transfer decision on the ground that such implementation is materially impossible due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
It considers that the material impossibility of carrying out the transfer decision is not such as to justify the interruption or suspension of the transfer period.
See the judgment: https://aeur.eu/f/385 (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)