Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62015CN0063

Case C-63/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in ’s-Hertogenbosch, (Netherlands) lodged on 12 February 2015 — Mehrdad Ghezelbash v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

OJ C 138, 27.4.2015, p. 36–37 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

27.4.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/36


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in ’s-Hertogenbosch, (Netherlands) lodged on 12 February 2015 — Mehrdad Ghezelbash v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-63/15)

(2015/C 138/49)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in ’s-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mehrdad Ghezelbash

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Questions referred

1.

What is the scope of Article 27 of Regulation No 604/2013 (1), whether or not in conjunction with recital 19 in the preamble to that regulation?

Does an asylum seeker — in a situation such as that in the present case, in which the foreign national was confronted with the request for assumption of responsibility to deal with the asylum application only after that request had been agreed to, and that foreign national submits evidence, subsequent to the agreement to that request, which could lead to the conclusion that it is the requesting Member State, and not the requested Member State, which is responsible for examining the application for asylum, and the requesting Member State subsequently does not examine those documents or forward them to the requested Member State — have the right, pursuant to that article, to an (effective) legal remedy against the application of the criteria for determining the Member State responsible laid down in Chapter III of Regulation No 604/2013?

2.

If under Regulation No 604/2013, or under the operation of Regulation No 343/2003 (2), the foreign national is in principle not entitled to invoke the incorrect application of the criteria for determining the Member State responsible when the requested Member State has agreed to a request to take charge, is the defendant correct in its contention that an exception to that assumption may be contemplated only in the case of family situations as referred to in Article 7 of Regulation No 604/2013, or is it conceivable that there may also be other special facts and circumstances on the basis of which the foreign national may be entitled to invoke the incorrect application of the criteria for determining the Member State responsible?

3.

If the answer to Question 2 is that, in addition to family situations, there are also other circumstances which could lead to the foreign national being entitled to invoke the incorrect application of the criteria for determining the Member State responsible, can the facts and circumstances described in paragraph 12 of the present decision constitute such special facts and circumstances?


(1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).

(2)  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).


Top