EuropeanMigrationLaw.eu

Asylum, immigration, free movement of people

A unique access to UE law and policies

> All the News

News

10.04.2017 – Court of Justice - Asylum - Request for a preliminary ruling - Dublin Regulation - X - Case C-47/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in Haarlem (Netherlands) lodged on 1 February 2017 — X v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie - Case C-47/17

Questions referred

(1) Should the requested Member State, having regard to the objective, the content and the scope of the Dublin Regulation and the Procedures Directive, respond within two weeks to a re-examination request as contained in Article 5(2) of the Implementing Regulation?

(2) If the answer to the first question is in the negative, does the time limit of a maximum of one month as provided for in Article 20(1)(b) of Regulation No 343/2003 (now Article 25(1) of the Dublin Regulation) apply, having regard to the last sentence of Article 5(2) of the Implementing Regulation?

(3) If the answer to the first and second questions is in the negative, does the requested Member State, due to the use of the word ‘beijvert’ Unknown shortcode type : English: in Article 5(2) of the Implementing Regulation, have a reasonable period of time to respond to the re-examination request?

(4) If there is indeed a reasonable period of time within which the requested Member State should respond to the re-examination request under Article 5(2) of the Implementing Regulation, can there, after over six months have passed, as in the present case, still be talk of a reasonable period of time? If the answer to that question is in the negative, what qualifies as a reasonable period of time?

(5) What should be the consequence of the requested Member State not responding within two weeks, one month or a reasonable period of time to a re-examination request? Is the requesting Member State then responsible for the substantive assessment of the foreign national’s asylum application or is that the responsibility of the requested Member State?

(6) If one should proceed on the assumption that the requested Member State becomes responsible for the substantive examination of the asylum application due to the lack of a timely response to the re-examination request as referred to in Article 5(2) of the Implementing Regulation, within what period of time should the requesting Member State, the defendant in the present case, notify the foreign national of that?

Source: OJEU, C 112, 10.04.2017

Read also :

> All the News

Related topics

Data and maps

Law and Case law

×

* Required