# C_2021320EN.01002802.xml

| 9.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 May 2021 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v B.

(Case C-323/21)

(2021/C 320/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Respondent: B.

Questions referred

| 1. | a) | Must the term ‘requesting Member State’ within the meaning of Article 29(2) of 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]) be interpreted as referring to the Member State (in this case, the third Member State, namely the Netherlands) which was the last to submit a take back or take charge request to another Member State? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

a)

Must the term ‘requesting Member State’ within the meaning of Article 29(2) of 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]) be interpreted as referring to the Member State (in this case, the third Member State, namely the Netherlands) which was the last to submit a take back or take charge request to another Member State?

| b) | If the answer is in the negative: does the fact that a claim agreement has previously been concluded between two Member States (in this case, Germany and Italy) still have consequences for the legal obligations of the third Member State (in this case, the Netherlands) under the Dublin Regulation towards the foreign national or the Member States concerned by that earlier claim agreement, and if so, what are those consequences? |
| --- | --- |

b)

If the answer is in the negative: does the fact that a claim agreement has previously been concluded between two Member States (in this case, Germany and Italy) still have consequences for the legal obligations of the third Member State (in this case, the Netherlands) under the Dublin Regulation towards the foreign national or the Member States concerned by that earlier claim agreement, and if so, what are those consequences?

| 2. | If Question 1 must be answered in the affirmative, must Article 27(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, read in the light of recital 19 of that regulation, be interpreted as precluding an applicant for international protection from successfully arguing, in the context of an appeal against a transfer decision, that that transfer cannot proceed because the time limit for a previously agreed transfer between two Member States (in this case, Germany and Italy) has expired? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 must be answered in the affirmative, must Article 27(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, read in the light of recital 19 of that regulation, be interpreted as precluding an applicant for international protection from successfully arguing, in the context of an appeal against a transfer decision, that that transfer cannot proceed because the time limit for a previously agreed transfer between two Member States (in this case, Germany and Italy) has expired?

---