1.

Is Article 27 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (‘the Dublin III Regulation’), (1) whether or not read in conjunction with Articles 47 and 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), and while noting the provisions of Directive 2003/86/EC, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the requested Member State is obliged to provide applicants, including children, who are present in the requesting Member State and who are seeking a transfer pursuant to Articles 8, 9 or 10 of the Dublin III Regulation, or the members of their family in the requested Member State within the meaning of Articles 8, 9 or 10 of the Dublin III Regulation, with an effective remedy before a court in the requested Member State against refusal of the request to take charge?

2.

In the event that Question a.1 is answered in the negative:

In that case, does the right to an effective remedy referred to in a.1 arise directly from Article 47 of the Charter, whether or not read in conjunction with Articles 7, 9 and 33 of the Charter, in the absence of adequate regulation in the Dublin III Regulation (see the judgments of 7 June 2016, Ghezelbash, C-63/15, paragraphs 51 and 52, (3) and of 26 July 2017, Mengesteab, C-670/16, paragraph 58 (4))?

3.

In the event that Question a.1. or Question a.2. is answered in the affirmative:

Is Article 47 of the Charter, whether or not read in conjunction with the principle of sincere cooperation (see the judgment of 13 November 2018, X, C-47/17 and C-48/17, (5)), to be interpreted as meaning that the requested Member State is obliged to inform the requesting Member State about an appeal brought by the applicants against the refusal of the request to take charge, and that the requesting Member State is obliged to refrain from ruling on the merits of the applicants’ asylum application pending a negative outcome of the appeal proceedings?

4.

In the event that Question a.1. or Question a.2. is answered in the affirmative:

Is Article 47 of the Charter, whether or not the assessments set out in recital 5 of the Dublin III Regulation are to be considered, to be interpreted in a case such as that described above as meaning that the courts of the requested Member State are obliged to guarantee legal protection by way of summary proceedings? Is there a period within which the courts in the requested Member State must take a decision on the appeal?

1.

Does the third subparagraph of Article 21(1) of the Dublin III Regulation, read in conjunction with Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 118/2014, (6) (‘the Implementing Regulation’) effect, in principle, a non-appealable transfer of responsibilities to the requesting Member State, if the requested Member State refuses both the original request from the [requesting] Member State and the application for reconsideration within the period (see the judgment of 13 November 2018, X, C-47/17 and C-48/17, EU:C:2018:900, paragraph 80)?

2.

If Question b.1 is answered in the affirmative:

Is that also the case if the refusal decisions of the requested Member State are unlawful?

3.

In the event that Question b.2 is answered in the negative:

Can the applicant for asylum in the requesting Member State invoke a transfer of responsibility that was unlawful due to failure to comply with responsibility criteria relating to family unity (Articles 8 to 11, 16, 17(2) of the Dublin III Regulation) against the requested Member State?

1.

Are Article 7(2) and Article 20(1) of the Dublin III Regulation to be interpreted as not precluding the applicability of the provisions in Chapter III or the implementation of a procedure for taking charge within the meaning of Chapter VI, Section II, of the Dublin III Regulation in cases where the applicants have already lodged an asylum application in the requesting Member State, which was originally rejected as inadmissible by the requesting Member State on the basis of Article 33(2)(c), read in conjunction with Article 38, of Directive 2013/32/EU, (7) but — for example as a result of the de facto settlement in the ‘EU-Turkey Statement of 18 March 2016’ (see EN P-000604/2021, Answer given by Ms Johansson on 1 June 2021 on behalf of the European Commission) — an admissible subsequent application procedure has since been initiated in the requesting Member State?

2.

In the event that Question c.1 is answered in the negative:

In the case described under c.1., are Article 7(2) and Article 20(1) of the Dublin III Regulation then to be interpreted in such a way that they do not preclude the applicability of the provisions in Chapter III and the implementation of a procedure to take charge pursuant to Chapter VI, Section II, of the Dublin III Regulation in cases involving responsibility criteria relating to family unity (Articles 8 to 11 and 16 of the Dublin III Regulation)?

3.

Is Article 17(2) of the Dublin III Regulation still applicable in the case where the applicants have already lodged an asylum application in the requesting Member State, which was originally rejected as inadmissible by the requesting Member State on the basis of Article 33(2)(c), read in conjunction with Article 38, of Directive 2013/32/EU, but — for example as a result of the de facto settlement in the ‘EU-Turkey Statement of 18 March 2016’ (see EN P-000604/2021, Answer given by Ms Johansson on 1 June 2021 on behalf of the European Commission) — an admissible subsequent application procedure has since been initiated in the requesting Member State?

4.

If Question c.3 is answered in the affirmative:

Does Article 17(2) of the Dublin III Regulation grant applicants for asylum an enforceable subjective right in the requested Member State? Does EU law lay down any stipulations regarding the exercise of administrative discretion by the national authorities in this regard — for example maintaining family unity, the best interests of children — or is this governed by national law alone?