This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62008CA0019
Case C-19/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm, Migrationsöverdomstolen, Sweden) — Migrationsverket v Edgar Petrosian, Nelli Petrosian, Svetlana Petrosian, David Petrosian, Maxime Petrosian (Right of asylum — Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 — Taking back by a Member State of an asylum seeker whose application has been refused and who is in another Member State where he has submitted a fresh asylum application — Start of the period for implementation of transfer of the asylum seeker — Transfer procedure the subject-matter of an appeal having suspensive effect)
Case C-19/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm, Migrationsöverdomstolen, Sweden) — Migrationsverket v Edgar Petrosian, Nelli Petrosian, Svetlana Petrosian, David Petrosian, Maxime Petrosian (Right of asylum — Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 — Taking back by a Member State of an asylum seeker whose application has been refused and who is in another Member State where he has submitted a fresh asylum application — Start of the period for implementation of transfer of the asylum seeker — Transfer procedure the subject-matter of an appeal having suspensive effect)
Case C-19/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm, Migrationsöverdomstolen, Sweden) — Migrationsverket v Edgar Petrosian, Nelli Petrosian, Svetlana Petrosian, David Petrosian, Maxime Petrosian (Right of asylum — Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 — Taking back by a Member State of an asylum seeker whose application has been refused and who is in another Member State where he has submitted a fresh asylum application — Start of the period for implementation of transfer of the asylum seeker — Transfer procedure the subject-matter of an appeal having suspensive effect)
OJ C 69, 21.3.2009, p. 10–10
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
21.3.2009 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 69/10 |
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm, Migrationsöverdomstolen, Sweden) — Migrationsverket v Edgar Petrosian, Nelli Petrosian, Svetlana Petrosian, David Petrosian, Maxime Petrosian
(Case C-19/08) (1)
(Right of asylum - Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 - Taking back by a Member State of an asylum seeker whose application has been refused and who is in another Member State where he has submitted a fresh asylum application - Start of the period for implementation of transfer of the asylum seeker - Transfer procedure the subject-matter of an appeal having suspensive effect)
(2009/C 69/15)
Language of the case: Swedish
Referring court
Kammarrätten i Stockholm, Migrationsöverdomstolen
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Migrationsverket
Defendants: Edgar Petrosian, Nelli Petrosian, Svetlana Petrosian, David Petrosian, Maxime Petrosian
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Kammarrätten i Stockholm, Migrationsöverdomstolen (Sweden) — Interpretation of Articles 20(1)(d) and 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1) — Taking back by a Member State of an applicant for asylum who is in another Member State and lodged another application for asylum there — Start of the period for transfer of the asylum seeker
Operative part of the judgment
Article 20(1)(d) and Article 20(2) of Regulation No 343/2003 of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national are to be interpreted as meaning that, where the legislation of the requesting Member State provides for suspensive effect of an appeal, the period for implementation of the transfer begins to run, not as from the time of the provisional judicial decision suspending the implementation of the transfer procedure, but only as from the time of the judicial decision which rules on the merits of the procedure and which is no longer such as to prevent its implementation.