National courts were faced with various debates throughout 2021 related to the calculation of transfer time limits. The French Council of State assessed the implications of refusing to undergo a COVID-19 test prior to a Dublin transfer in several cases. In one of the cases, it confirmed that the refusal could be seen as absconding and the transfer time limit could be extended as the applicant was well informed of the potential consequences of the refusal. However, in another case, the council found that the applicant was not informed about these consequences in a language he could understand, thus he could not be considered to have intentionally absconded. 

The German Federal Administrative Court decided in five cases457  that not complying with a request to appear in person for a compulsory transfer to another Member State does not justify the extension of the transfer deadline to 18 months. The applicants could not be considered to have absconded when the authorities knew their location and had the possibility to implement the transfer, even if with direct force.

The Rome Tribunal annulled the transfer of an applicant because the notification of the transfer decision was given after the 6-month time limit.

As with remedies, several aspects of counting time limits remained unclear and gave rise to questions to the CJEU. For example, the Dutch Council of State referred questions for a preliminary ruling on the application of the so-called ‘chain rule’, a practical solution to determine the responsible Member State in cases where an applicant applied for international protection in more than two Member States. This rule is not set out in the Dublin III Regulation, but several Member States apply it in practice. The questions sought clarification on the term ‘requesting Member State’ and the modalities for counting the transfer time limit in these cases.