This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62023CA0662
Case C-662/23, Zimir: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 May 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State – Netherlands) – Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v X (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Asylum policy – Directive 2013/32/EU – Article 4(1) and point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) – Procedures for granting international protection – Extension by the determining authority of the six-month examination period – Large number of applications for international protection lodged simultaneously – Concept – Consideration of other circumstances)
Case C-662/23, Zimir: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 May 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State – Netherlands) – Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v X (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Asylum policy – Directive 2013/32/EU – Article 4(1) and point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) – Procedures for granting international protection – Extension by the determining authority of the six-month examination period – Large number of applications for international protection lodged simultaneously – Concept – Consideration of other circumstances)
Case C-662/23, Zimir: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 May 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State – Netherlands) – Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v X (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Asylum policy – Directive 2013/32/EU – Article 4(1) and point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) – Procedures for granting international protection – Extension by the determining authority of the six-month examination period – Large number of applications for international protection lodged simultaneously – Concept – Consideration of other circumstances)
OJ C, C/2025/3380, 30.6.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3380/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/2025/3380 |
30.6.2025 |
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 May 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State – Netherlands) – Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v X
(Case C-662/23, (1) Zimir) (2)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Asylum policy - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 4(1) and point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) - Procedures for granting international protection - Extension by the determining authority of the six-month examination period - Large number of applications for international protection lodged simultaneously - Concept - Consideration of other circumstances)
(C/2025/3380)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Raad van State
Parties in the main proceedings
Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
Defendant: X
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
Point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection must be interpreted as meaning that the six-month time limit laid down for the examination of applications for international protection, referred to in that provision, may be extended by a period of nine months by the determining authority in the event of a significant increase in the number of those applications, within a short period, compared to the normal and foreseeable trend in the Member State concerned, which excludes a situation characterised by a gradual increase in the number of those applications over an extended period. |
|
2. |
Point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 4(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the difficulty, in practice, of concluding the procedure for the examination of applications for international protection within the six-month time limit cannot result from circumstances other than a large number of applications lodged simultaneously, such as a significant backlog of applications or insufficient personnel at the determining authority. |
(1) OJ C C/2024/1241.
(2) The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3380/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)