X and X (Pakistan) v Belgian state (represented by the Minister for Social Affairs and Health, and for Asylum and Migration
BE: The Council for Alien Law ruled on the decision of prolongation of the transfer period in the Dublin procedure
The two cases are interlinked and concern the appeals of a brother and sister from Pakistan.
Following the decision that another Member State (Germany) was responsible for their asylum application, they received an information package in view of the organisation of the Dublin transfer. This correspondance was accompanied with a declaration form on voluntary return.
The court stated in case nr. 237 902 that the information package itself does not have any impact on the legal situation of the applicants, it is merely a communication form, and as such, the delivery of it is not a legal act, which can be appealed. It is the decision on the prolongation of the transfer period, which can be appealed.
In case nr. 237 903, the CALL noted that - based on the CJEU decision in Jawo (C-163/17) - the mere fact that the applicants did not return the declaration on voluntary return within the legal deadline cannot be automatically interpreted as a sign, that they deliberately wanted to abscond and prevent their transfer. Thus, it cannot automatically lead to a decision on the prolongation of the transfer period.
Dublin procedure; Effective remedy; Pakistan;
Belgium, Council for Alien Law Litigation [Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers - CALL], X and X (Pakistan) v Belgian state (represented by the Minister for Social Affairs and Health, and for Asylum and Migration, nr. 237 902 and nr. 237 903, 02 July 2020. Link redirects to the English summary in the EASO Case Law Database.