# C_2021297EN.01002402.xml

| 26.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 17 May 2021 — PP v Ministero dell’Interno, Dipartimento per le Libertà civili e l’Immigrazione — Unità Dublino

(Case C-315/21)

(2021/C 297/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PP

Defendant: Ministero dell’Interno, Dipartimento per le Libertà civili e l’Immigrazione — Unità Dublino

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EU) 604/2013 (1) be interpreted as meaning that infringement thereof in itself renders unlawful a decision challenged under Article 27 of Regulation (EU) 604/2013, irrespective of the specific consequences of that infringement for the content of the decision and the identification of the Member State responsible? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EU) 604/2013 (1) be interpreted as meaning that infringement thereof in itself renders unlawful a decision challenged under Article 27 of Regulation (EU) 604/2013, irrespective of the specific consequences of that infringement for the content of the decision and the identification of the Member State responsible?

| 2. | Must Article 27 of Regulation (EU) 604/2013, read in conjunction with Article 18(1)(a) or with Articles 18(2)(b), (c) and (d) and with Article 20(5) of the Dublin III Regulation, be interpreted as identifying different subjects of appeal, different complaints to be raised in judicial proceedings and different aspects of infringement of the obligations to provide information and conduct a personal interview under Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EU) 604/2013?
  If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative, must Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 be interpreted as meaning that the guarantees relating to information, provided for therein, are enjoyed only in the scenario set out in Article 18(1)(a) and not also in the take back procedure, or must they be interpreted as meaning that in that procedure the obligations to provide information are enjoyed at least in relation to the cessation of responsibilities referred to in Article 19 or the systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants which result in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union referred to in Article 3(2)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 27 of Regulation (EU) 604/2013, read in conjunction with Article 18(1)(a) or with Articles 18(2)(b), (c) and (d) and with Article 20(5) of the Dublin III Regulation, be interpreted as identifying different subjects of appeal, different complaints to be raised in judicial proceedings and different aspects of infringement of the obligations to provide information and conduct a personal interview under Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EU) 604/2013?

If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative, must Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 be interpreted as meaning that the guarantees relating to information, provided for therein, are enjoyed only in the scenario set out in Article 18(1)(a) and not also in the take back procedure, or must they be interpreted as meaning that in that procedure the obligations to provide information are enjoyed at least in relation to the cessation of responsibilities referred to in Article 19 or the systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants which result in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union referred to in Article 3(2)?

| 3. | Must Article 3(2) be interpreted as meaning that ‘systemic flaws in the asylum procedure’ includes any consequences of final decisions rejecting an application for international protection already adopted by the court of the Member State effecting the take back, where the court seised pursuant to Article 27 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 considers that there is a real risk that the applicant could suffer inhuman and degrading treatment if he or she is returned to his or her country of origin by the Member State, also having regard to the presumed existence of a general armed conflict within the meaning of Article 15(c) of Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011? (2) |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 3(2) be interpreted as meaning that ‘systemic flaws in the asylum procedure’ includes any consequences of final decisions rejecting an application for international protection already adopted by the court of the Member State effecting the take back, where the court seised pursuant to Article 27 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 considers that there is a real risk that the applicant could suffer inhuman and degrading treatment if he or she is returned to his or her country of origin by the Member State, also having regard to the presumed existence of a general armed conflict within the meaning of Article 15(c) of Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011? (2)

---

(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).

(2)  Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast) (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).

---