# C_2021412EN.01000801.xml

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 18 August 2021 — FU v Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil)

(Case C-505/21)

(2021/C 412/06)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FU

Defendant: Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil)

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 27(3) of the Dublin III Regulation (Regulation No 604/2013), (1) where appropriate read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that an application for ordinary suspension, made together with an application for the annulment of a decision to transfer an applicant to a Member State declared responsible for examining his or her application for international protection, does not suspend the implementation of the transfer until a decision is given on that application for suspension? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 27(3) of the Dublin III Regulation (Regulation No 604/2013), (1) where appropriate read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that an application for ordinary suspension, made together with an application for the annulment of a decision to transfer an applicant to a Member State declared responsible for examining his or her application for international protection, does not suspend the implementation of the transfer until a decision is given on that application for suspension?

| 2. | Is Article 27(3) of the Dublin III Regulation, where appropriate read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that an application for suspension of a decision to transfer an applicant to a Member State responsible for examining his or her application for international protection suspends the implementation of the transfer until a decision is given on the application for suspension only if that application has been made on grounds of extreme urgency, where the applicant is the subject of a removal or refoulement order the enforcement of which is imminent, in particular where he or she is held in detention or is placed at the disposal of the government, and where he or she has not yet applied for the ordinary suspension of the decision at the same time as applying for its annulment? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 27(3) of the Dublin III Regulation, where appropriate read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that an application for suspension of a decision to transfer an applicant to a Member State responsible for examining his or her application for international protection suspends the implementation of the transfer until a decision is given on the application for suspension only if that application has been made on grounds of extreme urgency, where the applicant is the subject of a removal or refoulement order the enforcement of which is imminent, in particular where he or she is held in detention or is placed at the disposal of the government, and where he or she has not yet applied for the ordinary suspension of the decision at the same time as applying for its annulment?

---

(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).

---