1.

Where a Member State is unable to make use of the option to declare inadmissible an application for international protection lodged by an applicant to whom another Member State (the recognising Member State) has already granted such protection (pursuant to Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU (2)), because that applicant is at risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the European Union] in the recognising Member State, when examining an application for international protection, in which the Member State must take full account of the decision of the recognising Member State to grant refugee status or subsidiary protection and of the factors underpinning that decision, must Articles 10(2) and (3), and Article 11(2) of Directive 2013/32/EU and Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 2011/95/EU (3), read in conjunction with the interpretation of those provisions in the judgment in QY (EU:C:2024:524), be interpreted as precluding the Member State from relying, in the decision rejecting the application for international protection, merely on the outcome of an investigation of origin (such as a language analysis), if the recognising Member State has not carried out that investigation?

2.

Does the principle of non-refoulement (Articles 18 and 19(2) of the Charter, Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC (4), Article 21(1) of Directive 2011/95/EU) preclude a return decision to the applicant’s country of origin pursuant to the second sentence of Article 6(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC, read in conjunction with paragraph 1 of that article, if the applicant has been granted refugee status or subsidiary protection status in another Member State, but the Member State in which he or she is currently staying and to which he or she has submitted an asylum application concludes, on the basis of an investigation without the outcome being predetermined, that the applicant cannot be granted protection status and protection status has not been withdrawn in the recognising Member State?

3.

If the answer to question 2 is in the negative, must an investigation be carried out, at the time the return decision is adopted, pursuant to the second sentence of Article 6(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC, read in conjunction with paragraph 1 of that article, as to whether the principle of non-refoulement (Articles 18 and 19(2) of the Charter, Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC, Article 21(1) of Directive 2011/95) applies, with the consequence that no return decision may be issued?

Or must a return decision necessarily be issued pursuant to the second sentence of Article 6(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC, read in conjunction with paragraph 1 of that article, and must the removal then be postponed, pursuant to Article 9(1)(a) of Directive 2008/115/EC, until such time as the recognising Member State has withdrawn refugee status or subsidiary protection status and has notified the Member State accordingly? And does this include the obligation to confirm in writing, at the same time as a return decision is taken, that the removal of that third-country national will be postponed if it [were] contrary to the principle of non-refoulement (reference for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Den Haag (District Court of The Hague, Netherlands) sitting at Roermond, of 12 March 2025, registered at the Court of Justice under Case C-202/25)?

4.

Must Articles 1, 4 and 7 of the EU Charter, and Articles 5, 6, 9 and 14 of Directive 2008/115/EC, read in conjunction with the interpretation of those provisions in the judgments in AA, EU:C:2023:540, and Ararat, EU:C:2024:892, be interpreted as precluding the issuance of a return decision if it immediately postpones indefinite removal because of the risk of infringement of the principle of non-refoulement (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrative Law Division of the Council of State, 27 August 2025, registered at the Court of Justice under Case C-569/25)?