# C_2023286EN.01000501.xml

| 14.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 286/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court — Ireland) — X v International Protection Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, Attorney General

(Case C-756/21, (1) International Protection Appeals Tribunal and Others (Attack in Pakistan))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common policy on asylum and subsidiary protection - Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status - Second sentence of Article 4(1) - Cooperation of the Member State with the applicant to assess the relevant elements of the application - Scope - General credibility of the applicant - Article 4(5)(e) - Evaluation criteria - Common procedures for the grant of international protection - Directive 2005/85/EC - Appropriate examination - Article 8(2) and (3) - Judicial review - Article 39 - Scope - Procedural autonomy of the Member States - Principle of effectiveness - Reasonable time to take a decision - Article 23(2) and Article 39(4) - Consequences of any breach)

(2023/C 286/05)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendants: International Protection Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, Attorney General,

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted must be interpreted as meaning that:






  — | the duty of cooperation laid down in that provision requires the determining authority to obtain (i) up-to-date information concerning all the relevant facts as regards the general situation prevailing in the country of origin of an applicant for asylum and international protection and (ii) a medico-legal report on his or her mental health, where there is evidence of mental health problems resulting potentially from a traumatic event which occurred in that country of origin and the use of such a report is necessary or relevant in order to assess the applicant’s genuine need for international protection, provided that the modalities of the use of such a report comply, inter alia, with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted must be interpreted as meaning that:

—

the duty of cooperation laid down in that provision requires the determining authority to obtain (i) up-to-date information concerning all the relevant facts as regards the general situation prevailing in the country of origin of an applicant for asylum and international protection and (ii) a medico-legal report on his or her mental health, where there is evidence of mental health problems resulting potentially from a traumatic event which occurred in that country of origin and the use of such a report is necessary or relevant in order to assess the applicant’s genuine need for international protection, provided that the modalities of the use of such a report comply, inter alia, with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

| — | the finding — in the context of a second level of judicial scrutiny provided for by national law — of a breach of the duty of cooperation laid down in that provision need not necessarily entail, by itself, the annulment of the decision dismissing an appeal brought against a decision rejecting an application for international protection, since the applicant for international protection may be required to demonstrate that the decision dismissing the appeal might have been different in the absence of that breach. |
| --- | --- |

—

the finding — in the context of a second level of judicial scrutiny provided for by national law — of a breach of the duty of cooperation laid down in that provision need not necessarily entail, by itself, the annulment of the decision dismissing an appeal brought against a decision rejecting an application for international protection, since the applicant for international protection may be required to demonstrate that the decision dismissing the appeal might have been different in the absence of that breach.

| 2. | EU law, in particular Article 23(2) and Article 39(4) of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, must be interpreted as meaning that:






  — | the periods which have elapsed between, on the one hand, the lodging of the application for asylum and, on the other, the adoption of the decisions of the determining authority and of the competent court or tribunal of first instance, cannot be justified by national legislative amendments made during those periods, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

EU law, in particular Article 23(2) and Article 39(4) of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, must be interpreted as meaning that:

—

the periods which have elapsed between, on the one hand, the lodging of the application for asylum and, on the other, the adoption of the decisions of the determining authority and of the competent court or tribunal of first instance, cannot be justified by national legislative amendments made during those periods, and

| — | the unreasonableness of one or other of those periods cannot, by itself and in the absence of any evidence that the excessive duration of the administrative or judicial proceedings affected the outcome of the dispute, justify setting aside the decision of the competent court or tribunal of first instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

the unreasonableness of one or other of those periods cannot, by itself and in the absence of any evidence that the excessive duration of the administrative or judicial proceedings affected the outcome of the dispute, justify setting aside the decision of the competent court or tribunal of first instance.

| 3. | Article 4(5)(e) of Directive 2004/83
  must be interpreted as meaning that a false statement, contained in the initial application for international protection, which was explained and withdrawn by the applicant for asylum at the first available opportunity, is not capable, by itself, of preventing the establishment of the applicant’s general credibility, for the purposes of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 4(5)(e) of Directive 2004/83

must be interpreted as meaning that a false statement, contained in the initial application for international protection, which was explained and withdrawn by the applicant for asylum at the first available opportunity, is not capable, by itself, of preventing the establishment of the applicant’s general credibility, for the purposes of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 472, 12.12.2022.

---