C.J.E.U., 25 October 2017, Shiri, C-201/16

Dublin transfers and the right to an effective remedy: between efficiency and the protection of fundamental rights

Résumé

With its judgment in the Shiri case, the Court of Justice of the EU rules that, when a Dublin transfer does not take place within the six-month time limit prescribed in the Dublin III Regulation, responsibility for examining the application for international protection is automatically shifted to the Member State that requested the Dublin transfer. Moreover, the Court extends the scope of the right to an effective remedy provided in the Dublin III Regulation, specifying that an applicant for international protection can challenge a Dublin transfer before a national court by invoking the expiry of the prescribed six-month time limit.