1.

Can the court derive from Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32/EU, (2) whether or not read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, or from any other provision or principle of EU law, the power to make its own ruling on the credibility of an asylum account, superseding the ruling made by the Minister?

2.

Can the court derive from any of the abovementioned provisions the power to make a substantive and final ruling on the application for international protection on the basis of those parts of the asylum account which the Minister deems credible and, if the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, those parts of the asylum account which the court also deems credible? In that regard, may the court substitute its own ruling on the plausibility of the fear of persecution or the real risk of serious harm for that of the Minister, especially if, against the background of publicly accessible country information, the court considers itself sufficiently informed to make such a ruling?

3.

Can national case-law constrain the powers referred to in questions 1 and 2, for example on the basis of procedural autonomy, to the effect that those powers are still vested exclusively in the Minister?

4.

May the court take into account information which was put forward on appeal, but which was not yet available at the administrative stage, in the ruling on the question whether it has enough information to make a substantive ruling? Is it relevant in that regard whether the parties have been able to express their views fully on the facts in writing or at the hearing?

5.

Should ‘well-founded fear’ as referred to in Article 2(d) of Directive 2011/95/EU (3) be understood as meaning that there is a reasonable likelihood that the asylum seeker will be persecuted upon return? Should that reasonable likelihood be determined on the basis of the criterion of a ‘rational and reasonable person’, whereby the decisive factor is whether, from the perspective of a rational and reasonable person in the position of the asylum seeker, a return to the country of origin appears unreasonable after weighing up all the known circumstances? If not, what criteria should be applied?