Judgment;Abstract — ECLI:EU:C:2025:978
Date: 2025-12-18
Language of the case: Danish
Court formation: First Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Denmark

Translation C-560/23 – 1 
Case C-560/23 [Tang] i 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
8 September 2023 
Referring court: 
Flygtningenævnet København (Denmark) 
Date of order for reference: 
8 September 2023 
Appellant: 
H (assisted by DRC Dansk Flygtningehjælp) 
Respondent: 
Udlændingestyrelsen 
  
FLYGTNINGENÆVNET (Refugee Tribunal, Denmark) 
Request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) 
Date lodged: 8 September 2023 
Referring court: Flygtningenævnet […] 
Appellant:  H (assisted by DRC Dansk Flygtningehjælp (Danish 
Refugee Council)) 
Respondent:  Udlændingestyrelsen (Immigration Service, Denmark) […] 
Introduction 
1 The Refugee Tribunal has, pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), decided to request the Court of 
 
i The name of this case is a fictive name. It does not correspond to the true name of any of the parties. 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 8. 9. 2023 – CASE C-560/23 
 
2  
Justice of the European Union to give a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of 
the rules on time limits set out in Article 29(1) [Or. 2] and (2) of the Dublin III 
Regulation (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 ([OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31;] ‘the Dublin III Regulation’), in 
conjunction with Article 27 of that regulation. 
2 The Dublin III Regulation, adopted in the light of the Treaty on the Functioning of 
the European Union, in particular Article 78(2)(e) thereof, is covered by the 
Danish opt-out and, under Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of 
Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing 
the European Community, the regulation does not have binding force for 
Denmark. The rules of the Dublin III Regulation do, however, apply in Denmark 
by virtue of a parallel agreement concluded on an intergovernmental basis and it 
follows from that parallel agreement that a request for a preliminary ruling may be 
made to the Court of Justice of the European Union; see Council Decision (EC) 
No 188/2006 of 21 February 2006 [(OJ 2006 L 31, p. 10)]. 
3 The Refugee Tribunal is requesting an expedited procedure in accordance with 
Article 105 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European 
Union having regard to the nature of the case and the purpose of the Dublin III 
Regulation to provide a rapid determination of the Member State responsible for 
the processing of an application for international protection. 
The competence of the Refugee Tribunal to make a reference 
4 The Refugee Tribunal, which is established by law, is an independent, quasi-
judicial collegiate body within the public administration. The Tribunal functions 
on a permanent basis as an administrative appeal body for the administrative 
decisions of the Immigration Service made at first instance in asylum matters, see 
udlændingelovens § 53 a (Paragraph 53 a of the Law on immigration). 
5 The Refugee Tribunal’s organisational matters are governed by Paragraph 53 of 
the Law on immigration. The Refugee Tribunal consists of a president and a 
number of vice-presidents, all of whom are judges and whose independence is 
protected by the Danish Constitution. In addition, the Tribunal consists of a 
number of members, who are appointed on the recommendation of the 
Advokatrådet (Bar Council) and the Minister for Immigration and Integration 
respectively. The members of the Refugee Tribunal are appointed by the 
Presidency of the Refugee Tribunal for a 4-year term of office and their 
appointment may be renewed for a further term of 4 years. The Refugee 
Tribunal’s members are independent and may neither accept nor seek instructions 
from the appointing or examining authority or body and the provisions of the 
retsplejeloven §§ 49-50 (Paragraphs 49 and 50 of the Court Rules of Procedure) 
TANG 
 
3 
on access to appeal to Den Særlige Klageret (Special Board of Revision) 
concerning a judge also apply to the members of the Refugee Tribunal, see 
Paragraph 53(1), (2) and (3), and the members of the Tribunal can be appointed 
only by judicial decision, [Or. 3] see Paragraph 53(4), point 4, of the Law on 
immigration. The independence of all members of the Tribunal is thus guaranteed 
by legislation. 
6 Specific cases are heard before the Tribunal’s president or a vice-president, who 
presides over the hearing, a lawyer and an official from the department of the 
Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet (Ministry of Immigration and Integration), 
see Paragraph 53(6) of the Law on immigration. Decisions of the Tribunal are 
reached on the basis of a majority of votes and each member has a vote. The 
Tribunal’s form of procedure is similar to that of a court and is inter partes, which 
means, inter alia, that the Tribunal may, during the investigation of the case, make 
rulings on the hearing of the person concerned and witnesses and the presentation 
of other pieces of evidence, and the Tribunal may appoint a lawyer for a person 
concerned who has not obtained legal representation for him or herself, see, more 
particularly, Paragraphs 54 and 55 of the Law on immigration. It follows from 
Paragraph 56(8) of the Law on immigration that the Refugee Tribunal’s decisions 
are final. That means that the Tribunal’s decisions cannot be challenged before 
another administrative authority and that access to judicial review of the 
Tribunal’s decisions is very limited. 
7 In light of the background set out above, the Refugee Tribunal regards itself as a 
‘court or tribunal’ in accordance with Article 267 TFEU entitled to make a 
reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union, 
in so far as the Tribunal is established by law, it is permanent, its jurisdiction is 
compulsory, its procedure is inter partes, it applies rules of law and it is 
independent, see, with regard in particular to the principles set out in the judgment 
of the Court of Justice of 24 May 2016 in MT Højgaard A/S and Others 
(C-396/14[, EU:C:2016:347]), paragraph 23. 
Facts of the case 
8 On 25 April 2021, the Afghan citizen H (‘the person concerned’) entered 
Denmark. On the same date, he submitted an application for international 
protection in Denmark. It appears from the Eurodac database that the person 
concerned was registered as an asylum seeker in Romania on 5 March 2021. 
9 On 24 June 2021, the Immigration Service therefore requested Romania to take 
back the person concerned in accordance with Article 18(1)(c) of the Dublin III 
Regulation. 
10 On 7 July 2021, Romania agreed to take back the person concerned in accordance 
with Denmark’s request of 24 June 2021. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 8. 9. 2023 – CASE C-560/23 
 
4  
11 On 19 July 2021, the Immigration Service decided to transfer the person 
concerned to Romania pursuant to Article 18(1)(c) of the Dublin III Regulation. 
By a claim made on the same date, the person concerned appealed against that 
decision to the Refugee Tribunal. The complaint relied on the suspensive effect of 
Article 27(3)(a) of the Dublin III Regulation. 
12 On 28 February 2022, Romania informed all Member States that, with effect from 
1 March 2022, Romania wished to suspend all inbound [Or. 4] transfers under the 
Dublin III Regulation in the light of the conflict in Ukraine and the increased 
influx of refugees to Romania. 
13 On 15 March 2022, the Refugee Tribunal remitted the case to the Immigration 
Service for fresh consideration thereof at first instance, inter alia for the Service to 
adopt a position on the effect of the Romanian authorities’ general statement on 
the specific decision to transfer the appellant to Romania. 
14 On 8 April 2022, the Immigration Service took a fresh decision to transfer the 
person concerned to Romania under Article 18(1)(c) of the Dublin III Regulation. 
By a claim made on the same date, the person concerned appealed against that 
decision to the Refugee Tribunal. The complaint relied on the suspensive effect of 
Article 27(3)(a) of the Dublin III Regulation. 
15 On 24 May 2022, Romania informed all Member States that the suspension of 
inbound transfers under the Dublin III Regulation had been lifted. 
16 On 2 December 2022, the Refugee Tribunal confirmed the decision of the 
Immigration Service of 8 April 2022. 
17 On 2 February 2023, the representative of the person concerned requested that the 
matter be reopened. In that regard, the representative submitted that the asylum 
case of the person concerned should be examined on the merits in Denmark, since 
the time limit laid down in the first part of Article 29(1) of the Dublin III 
Regulation had been exceeded at the time of the decision of the Immigration 
Service of 8 April 2022, with the consequence that subsequently Denmark is 
responsible for examining the case on the merits, in accordance with Article 29(2). 
In the alternative, the representative submitted that the case should be referred to 
the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling, since the 
Court of Justice had not previously given a ruling on the interpretation of 
Article 29 in a case such as the present case. 
18 On 13 February 2023, the Refugee Tribunal decided to reopen the case for 
rehearing before the Tribunal. 
19 On 19 April 2023, the Refugee Tribunal confirmed the decision of the 
Immigration Service of 8 April 2022. So far as concerns the issue of the 
calculation of the time limit under Article 29(1) of the Dublin III Regulation, the 
decision states, inter alia: 
TANG 
 
5 
‘… 
The consequence of the fact that, on 15 March 2022, the Refugee Tribunal 
remitted the case to the Immigration Service was that the case, as a result of 
the decision of the appellate body, continued to be dealt with by the 
immigration authorities, just as the continued handling of the case meant that 
the complainant could not be transferred to Romania and that the fresh 
decision of the Immigration Service of 8 April 2022 on transfer to Romania 
conferred suspensive effect during the appeal procedure until the Refugee 
Tribunal’s fresh decision of 2 [Or. 5] December 2022, by which the 
Tribunal confirmed the decision of the Immigration Service that the 
complainant could be transferred to Romania. 
Neither the Dublin III Regulation nor the case-law of the Court of Justice of 
the European Union cited above expressly states the consequences, as 
regards the time limit, of a remittal by an appeal body to the first instance 
body of a decision taken on the basis of the Dublin III Regulation for fresh 
examination at first instance, but it is apparent from Article 29(1) of that 
regulation that a transfer is to have been carried out at the latest within six 
months of acceptance by another Member State of the request to take charge 
or to take back the person concerned or of the final decision on an appeal or 
review where there is a suspensive effect in accordance with 
Article 27(3)(a). Where the transfer does not take place within the six month 
time limit, the Member State responsible shall, pursuant to [Article 29(2)], 
be relieved of its obligations to take charge or to take back the person 
concerned and responsibility shall then be transferred to the requesting 
Member State. This time limit may be extended up to a maximum of one 
year if the transfer could not be carried out due to imprisonment of the 
person concerned or up to a maximum of eighteen months if the person 
concerned absconds. 
In any event, in the present circumstances, where the remittal arose from 
wholly unforeseeable circumstances, which are not the fault of the 
immigration authorities, the Refugee Tribunal finds it most in line with 
Article 27 of the Dublin III Regulation and the interests underlying that 
provision on access to effective remedies in respect of decisions made under 
Article 18(1)(a) and (c) of the Dublin III Regulation (see also in that regard 
recital 19 in the preamble and Article 47 of the European Charter [of 
Fundamental Rights]), to interpret the Dublin III Regulation as meaning that, 
in the present case, the time limit of six months laid down in the second part 
of Article 29(1) of the Dublin III Regulation in the specific case first began 
to run only from the Refugee Tribunal’s final decision of 2 December 2022, 
even though the Refugee Tribunal’s remittal of 15 March 2022 could have 
resulted in a determination by the Immigration Service that the person 
concerned should not be transferred to Romania. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 8. 9. 2023 – CASE C-560/23 
 
6  
The Refugee Tribunal therefore finds no basis on which to hold that the 
asylum application of the person concerned must now be examined on the 
merits in Denmark. [] 
[…]’ 
20 On 4 May 2023, the Refugee Tribunal decided, on the basis of a request from the 
Danish Refugee Council, to reopen the case in order to review the interpretation of 
the time limit rules in the Article 29(1) and (2), in conjunction with Article 27, of 
the Dublin III Regulation. The Danish Refugee Council referred, in the request to 
reopen the case, in particular to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the 
European Union of 30 March 2023 in the case of E.N. and Others (C-556/21[, 
EU:C:2023:272]) and submitted that responsibility under the regulation had 
passed to Denmark when the Immigration Service made its decision of 8 April 
2022, see Article 29(2) of the Dublin III Regulation. 
21 [Or. 6] The examination of the initial appeal, the examination of the second 
appeal and the first reopening of the case had suspensive effect as regards the 
removal, which is also the case in the present reopening of the matter. 
EU law 
22 The relevant EU-law framework is Article 29(1) and (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 [(OJ 2013 
L 180, p. 31)], in conjunction with Articles 18 and 27 of that regulation and 
recitals 4, 5 and 19 in the preamble thereto and Article 47 of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 
23 It follows from Article 29(1) of the Dublin III Regulation, inter alia, that the 
transfer of the applicant or of another person as referred to in Article 18(1)(c) or 
(d) of the regulation from the requesting Member State to the Member State 
responsible is to be carried out in accordance with the national law of the 
requesting Member State, after consultation between the Member States 
concerned, as soon as practically possible, and at the latest within six months of 
acceptance of the request by another Member State to take charge or to take back 
the person concerned or of the final decision on an appeal or review where there is 
a suspensive effect in accordance with Article 27(3). Where the transfer does not 
take place within the time limit of six months set out in Article 27(1), it follows 
from Article 29(2) that the Member State responsible is to be relieved of its 
obligations to take charge or to take back the person concerned and responsibility 
shall then be transferred to the requesting Member State. This time limit may be 
extended up to a maximum of one year if the transfer could not be carried out due 
to imprisonment of the person concerned or up to a maximum of eighteen months 
if the person concerned absconds. 
TANG 
 
7 
24 It follows from Article 27 of the Dublin III Regulation that an alien as referred to 
in Article 18(1)(c) or (d) shall have the right to an effective remedy, in the form of 
an appeal or a review, in fact and in law, against a transfer decision, before a court 
or tribunal. 
25 The recitals in the preamble to the Dublin III Regulation (recitals 4, 5 and 19) are 
based on the existence of a clear and workable method for determining the 
Member State responsible for the examination of an asylum application. Such a 
method should be based on objective, fair criteria both for the Member States and 
for the persons concerned and should, in particular, make it possible to determine 
rapidly the Member State responsible, so as to guarantee effective access to the 
procedures for granting international protection and not to compromise the 
objective of the rapid processing of applications for international protection. Legal 
safeguards and the right to an effective remedy in respect of [Or. 7] decisions 
regarding transfers to the Member State responsible should be established, see in 
particular Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 
26 The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled in a line of decisions on the 
interpretation of Article 29(1) and (2) and Article 27 of the Dublin III Regulation, 
and the Refugee Tribunal is aware that, in the case-law of the Court of Justice, the 
interpretation of the time limits in the Dublin III Regulation is restrictive, see in 
that regard – besides the decisions referred to in paragraphs 32 and 33 below – 
judgment of the Court of Justice of 31 May 2018 in Adil Hassan (C-647/16[, 
EU:C:2018:368]); judgment of 7 June 2016 in Ghezelbash (C-63/15[, 
EU:C:2016:409]); judgment of 25 October 2017 in Shiri (C-201/16[, 
EU:C:2017:805]) and judgment of 5 July 2018 in X (C-213/17[, EU:C:2018:538]). 
27 The Court of Justice of the European Union has most recently given a ruling on 
the time limit rules in the Dublin III Regulation in a judgment of 30 March 2023 
in E.N and Others (C-556/21[, EU:C:2023:272]), where the Court of Justice held 
that Article 29(1) and (2), in conjunction with Article 27(3), of the regulation, is to 
be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows a national court 
or tribunal hearing an appeal at second instance against a judgment annulling a 
transfer decision to adopt, on the application of the competent authorities, an 
interim measure enabling those authorities to refrain from taking a fresh decision 
pending the outcome of that appeal and having the object or effect of suspending 
the running of the transfer time limit until that outcome, provided that such a 
measure may be adopted only where the implementation of the transfer decision 
has been suspended pursuant to Article 27(3) or (4) of that regulation during the 
examination of the appeal at first instance. Furthermore, it follows from 
paragraph 24 of that judgment that it is apparent from Article 29(1) of the Dublin 
III Regulation, and in particular from the use of the expression ‘final decision’, 
that the EU legislature envisaged that the transfer time limit would not start to run 
until the point at which the decision on an appeal against a transfer decision 
becomes final, after all remedies provided for by the legal order of the Member 
State concerned have been exhausted, provided that the implementation of the 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 8. 9. 2023 – CASE C-560/23 
 
8  
transfer decision has been suspended pursuant to Article 27(3) or (4) of that 
regulation. 
National law 
28 Doubts have arisen in the present case as to the interpretation of the time limit 
rules in Article 29(1) of the Dublin III Regulation, because, in its examination 
under Article 27 of the regulation, the Refugee Tribunal remitted the case to the 
Immigration Service for a fresh examination at first instance in accordance with 
the national rules of administrative law. 
29 Under Danish administrative law, remittal means that a superior authority rescinds 
a decision of a lower authority, after which the case is returned to the lower 
authority for fresh examination. Accordingly, remittal means that the decision of 
the lower authority is annulled. 
30 [Or. 8] Under Danish administrative law, a remittal can be made, in principle, in 
three types of cases: (1) if the first instance body had insufficient information 
concerning the case on which to base its decision; (2) if substantial procedural 
errors were committed at first instance; or (3) if there is new, material information 
relevant to the initial decision. 
31 A remittal thus means that the case continues to be dealt with by the authorities 
and that it is possible to bring an appeal against the fresh decision made at first 
instance. 
Arguments of the parties 
32 The Immigration Service has argued that the time limit in Article 29(1) of the 
Dublin III Regulation has not expired in the present case and has referred in 
particular to the fact that that provision takes into account that the time limit for 
transfer should not expire while there is an appeal with suspensive effect in 
accordance with Article 27(3) of the regulation, since the time limit first starts to 
run when a final decision on the appeal is delivered, see judgment of the Court of 
Justice of the European Union of 29 January 2009 in Petrosian (C-19/08[, 
EU:C:2009:41]), paragraph 45, and judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 July 
2017 in A.S. (C-490/16[, EU:C:2017:585]), paragraphs 58 and 60. Such a final 
decision did not occur until the decision of the Refugee Tribunal of 2 December 
2022. 
33 The representatives of the person concerned (the court-appointed lawyer and the 
Danish Refugee Council) submitted that the time limit in Article 29(1) of the 
Dublin III Regulation had already expired when the fresh decision of the 
Immigration Service of 8 April 2022 was made after the remittal decision of the 
Refugee Tribunal of 15 March 2022 which annulled the decision of the 
Immigration Service of 19 July 2021. When the fresh decision of the Immigration 
TANG 
 
9 
Service of 8 April 2022 was made, more than six months had elapsed since the 
receipt of the acceptance by the Romanian authorities and it thus follows directly 
from Article 29(1) of the Dublin III Regulation that Denmark is responsible for 
processing the asylum case of the person concerned. A new transfer decision, 
taken by the body at first instance after a remittal, must therefore be made within 
six months of the receipt of the acceptance by the Member State responsible. 
Reference is made in particular to the mandatory nature of the time limits in 
Article 29(1) and (2) of the regulation and to the judgment of the Court of Justice 
of the European Union of 13 November 2018 in X and X (C-47/17 and C-48/17[, 
EU:C:2018:900]), paragraph 70; judgment of 19 March 2019 in Jawo (C-163/17[, 
EU:C:2019:218]), paragraphs 59 and 60; judgment of 31 March 2022 in IA 
(C-231/21[, EU:C:2022:237]), paragraphs 54 to 56, and judgment of 
22 September 2022 in M.A. and Others (C-245/21 and C-248/21[, 
EU:C:2022:709]), paragraphs 65 to 68. It follows from neither the wording nor the 
purpose of those provisions that the remittal decision of the Refugee Tribunal of 
15 March 2022 constitutes a ‘final’ decision which justifies a new time limit of six 
months under the regulation. Following the judgment of the Court of Justice of 
30 March 2023 in E.N. and Others (C-556/21[, EU:C:2023:272]), there are 
grounds for holding that the remittal decision of 15 March 2022 entails an 
annulment of the decision of the Immigration Service of 19 July 2021 and that 
therefore it was no longer a transfer decision which could be [Or. 9] reviewed or 
the implementation of which postponed under Article 27 of the Dublin III 
Regulation. Furthermore, it is submitted that the Petrosian case (C-19/08) 
concerns the previous Dublin II Regulation and that the applicable Dublin III 
Regulation contains an improved protection for asylum seekers in the Dublin 
procedure, notably in respect of the regulation of the issue of suspensive effect, 
and that the A.S. case (C-490/16[, EU:C:2017:585]) concerns a different situation 
from that of the present case, since it exclusively deals with a situation of an 
appeal before a court or tribunal covered by Article 27(3) of the regulation, by 
virtue of which suspensive effect is granted. 
Background to the question referred by the Refugee Tribunal 
34 The situation in the present case is that the Immigration Service, within the time 
limit of six months laid down in the first part of Article 29(1) of the Dublin III 
Regulation, decided to transfer the person concerned to Romania in accordance 
with Article 18(1)(c) of the Dublin III Regulation. That decision was brought 
before the Refugee Tribunal in its capacity as appeal body (see Article 27 of the 
Dublin III Regulation), and, on 15 March 2022, the Refugee Tribunal decided to 
remit the case to the Immigration Service for fresh consideration at first instance, 
referring to the fact that the Romanian authorities had, with effect from 1 March 
2022, decided to suspend transfers under the regulation to Romania due to the 
conflict in Ukraine and the increased influx of refugees to Romania. The 
Immigration Service subsequently, on 8 April 2022, made a fresh decision to 
transfer the person concerned to Romania in accordance with Article 18(1)(c) of 
the Dublin III Regulation and that decision, which was therefore adopted after 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 8. 9. 2023 – CASE C-560/23 
 
10  
expiry of the time limit of six months laid down in the first part of Article 29(1) of 
that regulation which ran from the acceptance by the Member State responsible of 
the transfer, was brought before the Refugee Tribunal for appeal within the period 
prescribed under national law. The Refugee Tribunal subsequently made a final 
decision in the appeal proceedings on 2 December 2022, adopted following the 
Tribunal’s remittal of 15 March 2022 and the Immigration Service’s consequent 
confirmation of the transfer decision of 8 April 2022. 
35 As an alternative to the remittal of 15 March 2022, the Refugee Tribunal could 
have stayed the appeal procedure in the Refugee Tribunal so that the Tribunal – 
possibly through the Immigration Service – could obtain further information on 
the altered situation in Romania and, in such a situation, the problems in this case 
would not have arisen. It therefore follows from the first part of Article 29(1) of 
the Dublin III Regulation that transfer is to be carried out at the latest within six 
months of the final decision on an appeal or review where there is a suspensive 
effect in accordance with Article 27(3) of the regulation. However, it is the 
Tribunal’s preliminary view that such approach entails a reduced protection for 
the person concerned than the approach adopted by the Tribunal, by which the 
case was remitted to the Immigration Service and it was made possible for the 
person concerned to have the case re-examined at two instances. 
36 [Or. 10] In the present case, the remittal was based on external and wholly 
unforeseeable circumstances outside the control of the Immigration Service – 
namely that the Member State responsible, Romania, after having accepted the 
transfer, suspended all transfers under the Dublin III Regulation due to the conflict 
in Ukraine and the increased influx of refugees to the country. The Refugee 
Tribunal therefore seeks, by request for a preliminary ruling, to clarify how the 
time limits in Article 29(1) and (2), in conjunction with Article 27, of the Dublin 
III Regulation are to be calculated in a situation such as that of the present case, 
which, as the Refugee Tribunal understands it, does not seem expressly regulated 
in the Dublin III Regulation, including whether the Member States are free – 
within the national administrative law framework and also in accordance with the 
EU law principles of equivalence and effectiveness, and with the principle of 
procedural autonomy ([see] in that regard, judgment of the Court of Justice of the 
European Union of 15 April 2021 in H.A. (C-194/19[, EU:C:2021:270]), 
paragraph 42) – to calculate the time limit from the final, substantive decision in 
the case. In the present case, that point in time was the decision of the Refugee 
Tribunal of 2 December 2022 which confirmed the fresh decision of the 
Immigration Service of 8 April 2022 to transfer the person concerned. 
The question referred 
37 Against the above background, the Court of Justice of the European Union is 
requested to reply to the following question: 
TANG 
 
11 
1. Are the time limit provisions in Article 29(1) and (2) of the Dublin III 
Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that the time limit of six months laid 
down in the second part of Article 29(1) of that regulation is to run from the 
final, substantive decision in the case, in a situation where an appellate body 
in the requesting Member State, as referred to in Article 27 of the Dublin III 
Regulation, has remitted the transfer case back to the competent authority at 
first instance, which subsequently made a fresh transfer decision more than 
six months after receipt of the acceptance by the Member State responsible, 
including where the remittal is based on the fact that the Member State 
responsible, which had initially accepted the transfer, subsequently decided 
to suspend all transfers under the Dublin III Regulation, and where 
suspensive effect has been granted as regards the removal of the person 
concerned? 
[…] 
[…] 
[name] 
(President, Judge at the 
Court of Appeal) 
  
[…] 
[name] 
(Member, appointed 
by the Bar Council) 
[…] 
[name] 
(Member appointed by the Minister 
for Immigration and Integration)