Common European Asylum System in a Changing World

explicitly foresees the right of applicants to appeal against transfer decisions, and in this context they may raise any argument relating to the incorrect application of the Regulation, including the wrong application of the criteria as well as a violation of the attendant procedural or evidentiary rules. Aziz Hasan, C-360/16 The case concerns a factual situation relevant for a review by a court or tribunal of a transfer decision based on the Dublin III Regulation. Article 27(1) of the Dublin III Regulation, read in the light of recital 19 of the Regulation and Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the factual situation that is relevant for the review by a court or tribunal of a transfer decision is that obtaining at the time of the last hearing before the court or tribunal determining the matter or, where there is no hearing, at the time when that court or tribunal gives a decision on the matter. Adil Hassan, C-647/16 Article 26(1) of the DR III must be interpreted as precluding a Member State that has submitted, to another Member State which it considers to be responsible for the examination of an application for international protection pursuant to the criteria laid down by that regulation, a request to take charge of or take back a person referred to in Article 18(1) of that regulation from adopting a transfer decision and notifying that person before the requested Member State has given its explicit or implicit agreement to that request. Ghezelbash, C-63/15 and C-155/15 Karim These cases relate to the scope of the right to an effective remedy in recital 19 and Article 27(1) of the DR III. Shiri, C-201/16 The case concerned the right to an effective remedy where a Dublin transfer had not been carried out within the six-month period laid down in Article 29 DRIII. It is apparent from the wording of Article 29(2) DRIII that responsibility is automatically transferred to the requesting Member State after the expiry of the six-month period, without the need of any reaction from the part of the requested Member State. Jawo, C-163/17 The case primarily concerns the questionwhether theEUCharter precludes the transfer of an applicant for international protection, pursuant to the Dublin III Regulation, to the Member State normally responsible for processing their application, , if the applicant would be exposed to a substantial risk of suffering in that Member State inhuman or degrading treatment on account of the living conditions that they could be expected to encounter as a beneficiary of international protection (assuming that the applicant is granted such protection). In contrast to previous judgments, namely N.S. and Others and C.K. and Others , the CJEU considered the applicant’s circumstances after having been transferred to the responsible Member State and granted international protection. This judgment provides another instance in which the principle of mutual trust – which is the cornerstone of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) – can be rebutted, leading to an asylum applicant not being transferred.

95