This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012CA0394
Case C-394/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Asylgerichtshof — Austria) — Shamso Abdullahi v Bundesasylamt (Request for a preliminary ruling — Common European Asylum System — Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application — Review of compliance with the criteria for determining responsibility for examining the asylum application — Scope of judicial review)
Case C-394/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Asylgerichtshof — Austria) — Shamso Abdullahi v Bundesasylamt (Request for a preliminary ruling — Common European Asylum System — Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application — Review of compliance with the criteria for determining responsibility for examining the asylum application — Scope of judicial review)
Case C-394/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Asylgerichtshof — Austria) — Shamso Abdullahi v Bundesasylamt (Request for a preliminary ruling — Common European Asylum System — Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application — Review of compliance with the criteria for determining responsibility for examining the asylum application — Scope of judicial review)
IO C 45, 15.2.2014, p. 12–12
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 10/12/2013
- Date lodged:
- 27/08/2012
- Author:
- An Chúirt Bhreithiúnais
- Form:
- Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
- Authentic language:
- Gearmáinis
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
- EUROVOC descriptor:
|
15.2.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 45/12 |
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Asylgerichtshof — Austria) — Shamso Abdullahi v Bundesasylamt
(Case C-394/12) (1)
(Request for a preliminary ruling - Common European Asylum System - Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application - Review of compliance with the criteria for determining responsibility for examining the asylum application - Scope of judicial review)
2014/C 45/20
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Asylgerichtshof
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Shamso Abdullahi
Defendant: Bundesasylamt
Re:
Request for a preliminary ruling — Asylgerichtshof — Interpretation 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) and, in particular, Articles 10, 16, 18 and 19 thereof, and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 of 2 September 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 (OJ 2003 L 222, p. 3) — Somali national having crossed the frontier of the European Union in Greece from where she then went, via third countries and Hungary, to Austria, where she submitted, less than 12 months after her first entry on European Union territory, an application for asylum — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining that asylum application
Operative part of the judgment
Article 19(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 must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances where a Member State has agreed to take charge of an applicant for asylum on the basis of the criterion laid down in Article 10(1) of that regulation — namely, as the Member State of the first entry of the applicant for asylum into the European Union — the only way in which the applicant for asylum can call into question the choice of that criterion is by pleading systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the conditions for the reception of applicants for asylum in that Member State, which provide substantial grounds for believing that the applicant for asylum would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
