This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016CA0360
Case C-360/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Aziz Hasan (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national — Procedures and periods laid down for making a take back request — Unlawful return of a third-country national to a Member State that has transferred him — Article 24 — Take back procedure — Article 27 — Remedy — Scope of judicial review — Circumstances after the transfer)
Case C-360/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Aziz Hasan (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national — Procedures and periods laid down for making a take back request — Unlawful return of a third-country national to a Member State that has transferred him — Article 24 — Take back procedure — Article 27 — Remedy — Scope of judicial review — Circumstances after the transfer)
Case C-360/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Aziz Hasan (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national — Procedures and periods laid down for making a take back request — Unlawful return of a third-country national to a Member State that has transferred him — Article 24 — Take back procedure — Article 27 — Remedy — Scope of judicial review — Circumstances after the transfer)
IO C 104, 19.3.2018, p. 5–6
(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:
- 23/01/2018
- Date lodged:
- 29/06/2016
- Author:
- An Chúirt Bhreithiúnais
- Form:
- Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
- Authentic language:
- Gearmáinis
- Type of procedure:
- Tarchur le haghaidh réamhrialú - ní gá breithiúnas, Tarchur le haghaidh réamhrialú
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Case affecting:
-
- Related EU case-law document 62016CJ0360
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
|
19.3.2018 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 104/5 |
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Aziz Hasan
(Case C-360/16) (1)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national - Procedures and periods laid down for making a take back request - Unlawful return of a third-country national to a Member State that has transferred him - Article 24 - Take back procedure - Article 27 - Remedy - Scope of judicial review - Circumstances after the transfer))
(2018/C 104/06)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Bundesverwaltungsgericht
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Defendant: Aziz Hasan
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
Article 27(1) of 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, read in the light of recital 19 of the regulation and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the factual situation that is relevant for the review by a court or tribunal of a transfer decision is that obtaining at the time of the last hearing before the court or tribunal determining the matter or, where there is no hearing, at the time when that court or tribunal gives a decision on the matter; |
|
2. |
Article 24 of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which a third-country national who, after having made an application for international protection in a first Member State (Member State ‘A’), was transferred to Member State ‘A’ as a result of the rejection of a fresh application lodged in a second Member State (Member State ‘B’) and has then returned, without a residence document, to Member State ‘B’, a take back procedure may be undertaken in respect of that third-country national and it is not possible to transfer that person anew to Member State ‘A’ without such a procedure being followed; |
|
3. |
Article 24(2) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which a third-country national has returned, without a residence document, to the territory of a Member State that has previously transferred him to another Member State, a take back request must be submitted within the periods prescribed in that provision and those periods may not begin to run until the requesting Member State has become aware that the person concerned has returned to its territory; |
|
4. |
Article 24(3) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a take back request is not made within the periods laid down in Article 24(2) of that regulation, the Member State on whose territory the person concerned is staying without a residence document is responsible for examining the new application for international protection which that person must be permitted to lodge; |
|
5. |
Article 24(3) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that an appeal procedure brought against a decision that rejected a first application for international protection made in a Member State is still pending is not to be regarded as equivalent to the lodging of a new application for international protection in that Member State, as referred to in that provision; |
|
6. |
Article 24(3) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the take back request is not made within the periods laid down in Article 24(2) of that regulation and the person concerned has not made use of the opportunity that he must be given to lodge a new application for international protection:
|
