Background:

Under Article 29 of the Dublin Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 604/2013), transfers must generally take place within six months, with responsibility shifting to the requesting Member State if the deadline is missed. The period may be extended to one year in case of imprisonment, or up to 18 months if the applicant absconds. Belgian legislation currently provides for a formal decision extending the transfer deadline, separate from the transfer decision. In the context of amendments to implement Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 (AMMR) into Belgian law, the removal of this decision is being considered. Belgium is therefore seeking information on the legal frameworks and practices of other Member States regarding the extension of transfer deadlines.

Respondents:

23 EMN Member and Observer Countries (including BE) provided a public answer to this query.

Findings:

A preliminary analysis of the results of the ad hoc query shows that:

• Most responding countries (AT, BG, HR, CY, CZ, EE, FI, FR, DE, GR, IE, IT, LV, LT, LU, PL, SK, SI, ES, SE) do not issue a formal decision extending the Dublin transfer deadline that is separate from the transfer decision itself. BE and NL provide for a distinct decision, while in HU the extension is included in the initial transfer decision if circumstances exist; otherwise, no separate decision is made.
   
• Most countries do not allow a separate appeal, as no formal decision to extend the deadline exists. Some of these countries (FI, FR, IT and SE) indicated that while the extension itself cannot be appealed, related issues (e.g. absconding or lack of legal grounds) may be raised in an appeal against the transfer decision. BE and NL provide for an appeal against the formal extension decision, while in HU an extension can, in principle, be challenged, though no cases are known.
   
• Most countries do not have specific provisions linking absconding to the extension of the transfer deadline. Among these, some refer to (national or European) case law or note that the risk of absconding is addressed in other contexts (e.g., in the context of detention in LU). Only BE and NL detailed legal provisions addressing absconding in this context.
   
• In most countries, when an applicant absconds, the responsible Member State is notified and the transfer deadline is extended in line with Article 29(2) of the Dublin Regulation. Unlike BE, where the applicant is also notified at their last known address, some countries do not inform the applicant about the extension of the transfer deadline (e.g., CY, FR, LU).
   
• Practices regarding reappearing applicants depend on the circumstances and timing of reappearance. The manner of reappearance (voluntary presentation or interception) may affect the applicant’s obligations, including reporting requirements or (alternatives to) detention. If the reappearance occurs while the transfer to the responsible Member State is still enforceable (i.e., within the extended transfer deadline), the existing transfer decision is generally maintained and no new decision is needed. If the extended transfer deadline has expired, responsibility generally shifts to the Member State where the applicant reappears.

For further details, please read the compilation of the answers attached above.