This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62018CN0406
Case C-406/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 20 June 2018 — PG v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal
Case C-406/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 20 June 2018 — PG v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal
Case C-406/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 20 June 2018 — PG v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal
OJ C 311, 3.9.2018, p. 8–9
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
3.9.2018 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 311/8 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 20 June 2018 — PG v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal
(Case C-406/18)
(2018/C 311/08)
Language of the case: Hungarian
Referring court
Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: PG
Defendant: Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal
Questions referred
|
1. |
Can Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 31 of Directive 2013/3[2]/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) (known as the ‘Procedures Directive’) be interpreted, in the light of Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as meaning that it is possible for effective judicial protection to be guaranteed in a Member State even if its courts cannot amend decisions given in asylum procedures but may only annul them and order that a new procedure be conducted? |
|
2. |
Can Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 31 of Directive 2013/3[2]/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (known as the ‘Procedures Directive’) be interpreted, again in the light of Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as meaning that legislation of a Member State which lays down a single mandatory time limit of 60 days in total for judicial proceedings in asylum matters, irrespective of any individual circumstances and without regard to the particular features of the case or any potential difficulties in relation to evidence, is compatible with those provisions? |
(1) 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 (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).