This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62022CA0359
Case C-359/22, Minister for Justice (Discretionary clause – Remedies): Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 April 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland)) - AHY v Minister for Justice (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Asylum policy – Determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection – Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 – Transfer of the asylum seeker to the Member State responsible for examining the application for international protection – Article 17(1) – Discretionary clause – Article 27(1) and (3) and Article 29(3) – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Remedies – Suspensive effect)
Case C-359/22, Minister for Justice (Discretionary clause – Remedies): Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 April 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland)) - AHY v Minister for Justice (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Asylum policy – Determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection – Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 – Transfer of the asylum seeker to the Member State responsible for examining the application for international protection – Article 17(1) – Discretionary clause – Article 27(1) and (3) and Article 29(3) – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Remedies – Suspensive effect)
Case C-359/22, Minister for Justice (Discretionary clause – Remedies): Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 April 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland)) - AHY v Minister for Justice (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Asylum policy – Determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection – Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 – Transfer of the asylum seeker to the Member State responsible for examining the application for international protection – Article 17(1) – Discretionary clause – Article 27(1) and (3) and Article 29(3) – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Remedies – Suspensive effect)
OJ C, C/2024/3419, 10.6.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3419/oj (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
Official Journal |
EN C series |
|
C/2024/3419 |
10.6.2024 |
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 April 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland)) – AHY v Minister for Justice
(Case C-359/22, (1) Minister for Justice (Discretionary clause – Remedies))
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Asylum policy - Determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Transfer of the asylum seeker to the Member State responsible for examining the application for international protection - Article 17(1) - Discretionary clause - Article 27(1) and (3) and Article 29(3) - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Remedies - Suspensive effect)
(C/2024/3419)
Language of the case: English
Referring court
High Court (Ireland)
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: AHY
Defendant: Minister for Justice
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
Article 27(1) 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
must be interpreted as not requiring Member States to make available an effective remedy against a decision adopted under the discretionary clause contained in Article 17(1) of that regulation. |
|
2. |
Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
must be interpreted as not applying to a situation in which an applicant for international protection who is the subject of a transfer decision has requested the Member State which adopted that decision to exercise its discretion under Article 17(1) of Regulation No 604/2013 or has sought a judicial remedy against the outcome of that request, with the result that that provision of the Charter of Fundamental Rights a fortiori does not preclude a Member State from implementing, in those circumstances, a transfer decision before that request or any action challenging the outcome of that request has been determined. |
|
— |
The first subparagraph of Article 29(1) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that the six-month time limit to proceed to the transfer of an applicant for international protection which is laid down in that provision starts to run from acceptance of the request by another Member State to take charge or to take back the person concerned or from the final decision on an appeal against or review of a transfer decision where there is a suspensive effect in accordance with Article 27(3) of that regulation, and not from the date of the final decision on an action challenging the decision of the requesting Member State, taken after the adoption of the transfer decision, not to make use of the discretionary clause under Article 17(1) of that regulation to examine the application for international protection. |
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3419/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)