# C_2021128EN.01001401.xml

| 12.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Haarlem (Netherlands) lodged on 13 January 2021 — I, S v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

(Case C-19/21)

(2021/C 128/20)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Haarlem

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: I, S

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 27 of the Dublin Regulation (1) be interpreted as requiring the requested Member State, whether or not in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, to provide the applicant residing in the requesting Member State and seeking transfer pursuant to Article 8 (or Article 9 or 10) of the Dublin Regulation, or the applicant’s family member referred to in Article 8, 9 or 10 of the Dublin Regulation, with an effective remedy before a court or tribunal against the refusal of the request to take charge? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 27 of the Dublin Regulation (1) be interpreted as requiring the requested Member State, whether or not in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, to provide the applicant residing in the requesting Member State and seeking transfer pursuant to Article 8 (or Article 9 or 10) of the Dublin Regulation, or the applicant’s family member referred to in Article 8, 9 or 10 of the Dublin Regulation, with an effective remedy before a court or tribunal against the refusal of the request to take charge?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative and Article 27 of the Dublin Regulation does not provide a basis for an effective remedy, must Article 47 of the Charter — read in conjunction with the fundamental right to family unity and the best interests of the child (as laid down in Articles 8 to 10 and recital 19 of the Dublin Regulation) — be interpreted as requiring the requested Member State to provide the applicant residing in the requesting Member State and seeking transfer pursuant to Articles 8 to 10 of the Dublin Regulation or the member of the applicant’s family referred to in Articles 8 to 10 of the Dublin Regulation, with an effective remedy before a court or tribunal against the refusal of the request to take charge? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative and Article 27 of the Dublin Regulation does not provide a basis for an effective remedy, must Article 47 of the Charter — read in conjunction with the fundamental right to family unity and the best interests of the child (as laid down in Articles 8 to 10 and recital 19 of the Dublin Regulation) — be interpreted as requiring the requested Member State to provide the applicant residing in the requesting Member State and seeking transfer pursuant to Articles 8 to 10 of the Dublin Regulation or the member of the applicant’s family referred to in Articles 8 to 10 of the Dublin Regulation, with an effective remedy before a court or tribunal against the refusal of the request to take charge?

| 3. | If Question 2 or Question 2 (second part) is answered in the affirmative, in what way and by which Member State should the requested Member State’s decision to refuse the request and the right to appeal against it to be communicated to the applicant or the applicant’s family member? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 2 or Question 2 (second part) is answered in the affirmative, in what way and by which Member State should the requested Member State’s decision to refuse the request and the right to appeal against it to be communicated to the applicant or the applicant’s family member?

---

(1)  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 (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).

---