# C_2017437EN.01000901.xml

| 18.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 437/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 437/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Majid Shiri, also known as Madzhdi Shiri

(Case C-201/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national - Article 27 - Remedy - Scope of the judicial review - Article 29 - Time limit for carrying out the transfer - No transfer within the time limit laid down - Obligations of the Member State responsible - Transfer of responsibility - Requirement for a decision of the Member State responsible))

(2017/C 437/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Majid Shiri, also known as Madzhdi Shiri

Joined party: Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl

Joined party:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 29(2) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing 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 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the transfer does not take place within the six-month time limit as defined in Article 29(1) and (2) of that regulation, responsibility is transferred automatically to the requesting Member State, without it being necessary for the Member State responsible to refuse to take charge of or take back the person concerned. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 29(2) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing 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 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the transfer does not take place within the six-month time limit as defined in Article 29(1) and (2) of that regulation, responsibility is transferred automatically to the requesting Member State, without it being necessary for the Member State responsible to refuse to take charge of or take back the person concerned.

| 2. | Article 27(1) of Regulation No 604/2013, read in the light of recital 19 thereof, and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that an applicant for international protection must have an effective and rapid remedy available to him which enables him to rely on the expiry of the six-month period as defined in Article 29(1) and (2) of that regulation that occurred after the transfer decision was adopted. The right which national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings accords to such an applicant to plead circumstances subsequent to the adoption of that decision, in an action brought against it, meets that obligation to provide for an effective and rapid remedy. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 27(1) of Regulation No 604/2013, read in the light of recital 19 thereof, and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that an applicant for international protection must have an effective and rapid remedy available to him which enables him to rely on the expiry of the six-month period as defined in Article 29(1) and (2) of that regulation that occurred after the transfer decision was adopted. The right which national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings accords to such an applicant to plead circumstances subsequent to the adoption of that decision, in an action brought against it, meets that obligation to provide for an effective and rapid remedy.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.

1

---