A.N.B.E.R.S. vs Belgium
According to the national contribution to the EMN Annual Report on Migration and Asylum 2019:
The Council for Alien Law Litigation (CALL) has annulled several Immigration Office’s “decisions” to extend the transfer time limit due to the fact the applicant had absconded. The CALL stated that Article 26 in conjunction with Article 29 (2) of the Dublin III Regulation, in view of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, entails the obligation to notify the applicant in writing of the motivated decision to extend the transfer time limit, which the Immigration Office failed to do. The Immigration Office lodged an appeal to the Council of State.
On 17/10/2019, the Council of State ruled that the right to an effective remedy against an administrative act, as it is provided by the Belgian law, is applicable to the “decision to extend the Dublin transfer time limit”, and therefore requires that such decision is motivated and notified in writing to the applicant. Hence, a separate appeal procedure against the extension of the time limit is possible, apart from a transfer decision.
** No original document provided, no reference to original document provided, I can't find the document.
Dublin procedure; Effective remedy;
Raad Van State (Council of State Official Website)
EASO Annual Report on the Situation of Asylum in the EU
Belgium,BE: Council of State [Raad van State - Conseil d'État], A.N.B.E.R.S. vs Belgium, 17/10/2019BE: The Council of State stated that the decision to extend the Dublin transfer time limit must be duly notified to the applicant