# C_2020313EN.01001602.xml

| 21.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail du Brabant wallon, division Wavre (Belgium) lodged on 24 July 2020 — PR v Agence fédérale pour l’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil)

(Case C-335/20)

(2020/C 313/20)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail du Brabant wallon, division Wavre

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PR

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

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the decision taken by a public administrative authority to change the mandatory place of registration of an asylum applicant in a reception centre, where the primary mission of that centre is to facilitate the transfer of that individual to the Member State with jurisdiction to examine his application for protection, interpreted as a preparatory measure for the effective transfer, where that individual has lodged a motion to set aside and suspend that removal order before a national court, already constitute the enforcement of that removal order within the meaning of the Dublin III Regulation? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the decision taken by a public administrative authority to change the mandatory place of registration of an asylum applicant in a reception centre, where the primary mission of that centre is to facilitate the transfer of that individual to the Member State with jurisdiction to examine his application for protection, interpreted as a preparatory measure for the effective transfer, where that individual has lodged a motion to set aside and suspend that removal order before a national court, already constitute the enforcement of that removal order within the meaning of the Dublin III Regulation? (1)

| 2. | In the affirmative, is the only remedy with suspensory effect — namely an application for suspension on grounds of extreme urgency provided by Article 39/82(4) of the Law of 15 December 1980 on entry into the territory, residence, establishment and removal of foreign nationals — for an asylum applicant who has been requested to have his application for international protection examined in another Member State, and linked to the imminent enforcement of a removal or refoulement order, an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 27 of the Dublin III Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the affirmative, is the only remedy with suspensory effect — namely an application for suspension on grounds of extreme urgency provided by Article 39/82(4) of the Law of 15 December 1980 on entry into the territory, residence, establishment and removal of foreign nationals — for an asylum applicant who has been requested to have his application for international protection examined in another Member State, and linked to the imminent enforcement of a removal or refoulement order, an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 27 of the Dublin III Regulation?

---

(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).

---