EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62017CN0113

Case C-113/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovak Republic) lodged on 6 March 2017 — QJ v Ministerstvo vnútra Slovenskej republiky, Migračný úrad

OJ C 168, 29.5.2017, p. 23–23 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

29.5.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/23


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovak Republic) lodged on 6 March 2017 — QJ v Ministerstvo vnútra Slovenskej republiky, Migračný úrad

(Case C-113/17)

(2017/C 168/30)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: QJ

Respondent: Ministerstvo vnútra Slovenskej republiky, Migračný úrad

Questions referred

1.

Must Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) (‘the Procedures Directive’) be interpreted to the effect that a national court deciding on the merits of an applicant’s need for international protection may, on the grounds that a negative decision has been repeatedly set aside and the case referred back to an administrative body on the basis of a repeatedly successful appeal, which has thus been shown to be ineffective, decide itself to grant such protection to the applicant, even if it does not have such competence under national law?

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does an appellate court competent to hear appeals concerning points of fact and law (the Najvyšší súd (Supreme Court) (Slovak Republic)) also have such jurisdiction?


(1)  OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60.


Top