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 62011CN0245

Case C-245/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Asylgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 23 May 2011 — K

OJ C 269, 10.9.2011, p. 21–21 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

10.9.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/21


Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Asylgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 23 May 2011 — K

(Case C-245/11)

2011/C 269/40

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Asylgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: K

Defendant: Bundesasylamt

Questions referred

1.

Must Article 15 of Regulation No 343/2003 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a Member State prima facie not responsible for examining the asylum claim of a person in accordance with the rules of Articles 6 to 14 of that regulation becomes automatically responsible if in that country the asylum-seeker has a daughter-in-law who is seriously ill and, on account of cultural factors, at risk or has grandchildren below the age of majority who, as a result of the daughter-in-law’s illness, are in need of care and the asylum-seeker is both willing and able to support her daughter-in-law and grandchildren? Does the same apply even if the Member State prima facie responsible has not made a request in accordance with the second sentence of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 343/2003?

2.

Must Article 3(2) of Regulation No 343/2003 be interpreted as meaning that in the circumstances mentioned in Question 1 the Member State prima facie not responsible becomes automatically responsible if the responsibility otherwise provided for by Regulation No 343/2003 will result in an infringement of Article 3 or Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (Article 4 or Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)? In that case, in the accessory interpretation and application of Article 3 or Article 8 of the ECHR (Article 4 or Article 7 of the Charter), may more extensive notions of ‘inhuman treatment’ or ‘family’, at variance with the interpretation developed by the European Court of Human Rights, be applied?


(1)  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