Case C-60/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen — Sweden) — Mohammad Khir Amayry v Migrationsverket (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 28 — Detention for the purposes of transfer of an applicant for international protection to the Member State responsible — Deadline for carrying out the transfer — Maximum period of detention — Calculation — Request to take charge accepted before the detention — Suspension of the implementation of the transfer decision)
Date: 2017-09-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, EU migration policy, aid to refugees, foreign national, fundamental rights, imprisonment, right of asylum, third country








C_2017382EN.01001501.xml










13.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/15





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen — Sweden) — Mohammad Khir Amayry v Migrationsverket
(Case C-60/16) (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 28 - Detention for the purposes of transfer of an applicant for international protection to the Member State responsible - Deadline for carrying out the transfer - Maximum period of detention - Calculation - Request to take charge accepted before the detention - Suspension of the implementation of the transfer decision))
(2017/C 382/17)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Mohammad Khir Amayry

Defendant: Migrationsverket

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 28 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, read in conjunction with Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that:






—


it does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that, where the detention of an applicant for international protection begins after the requested Member State has accepted the take charge request, that detention may be maintained for no longer than two months, provided, first, that the duration of the detention does not go beyond the period of time which is necessary for the purposes of that transfer procedure, assessed by taking account of the specific requirements of that procedure in each specific case and, second, that, where applicable, that duration is not to be longer than six weeks from the date when the appeal or review ceases to have suspensive effect; and










—


it does preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows, in such a situation, the detention to be maintained for 3 or 12 months during which the transfer could be reasonably carried out.














2.


Article 28(3) of the Dublin III Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the number of days during which the person concerned was already detained after a Member State has accepted the take charge or take back request need not be deducted from the six week period established by that provision, from the moment when the appeal or review no longer has suspensive effect.










3.


Article 28(3) of the Dublin III Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the six week period beginning from the moment when the appeal or review no longer has suspensive effective, established by that provision, also applies when the suspension of the execution of the transfer decision was not specifically requested by the person concerned.






(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.