9.8.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/30

(Case C-325/21)

(2021/C 320/30)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: K.

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Questions referred

1.Must Article 29 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180[, p. 31]) be interpreted as meaning that a current transfer time limit, as referred to in Article 29(1) and (2), restarts at the point at which the foreign national, after having obstructed the transfer by a Member State by absconding, lodges a fresh application for international protection in another (in this case, a third) Member State?

2.If Question 1 must be answered in the negative, must Article 27(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, read in the light of recital 19 of that regulation, be interpreted as precluding an applicant for international protection from successfully arguing, in the context of an appeal against a transfer decision, that that transfer cannot proceed because the time limit for a previously agreed transfer between two Member States (in this case, France and Austria) has expired, with the result that the time limit within which the Netherlands can effect the transfer has expired?