# C_2017239EN.01002402.xml

| 24.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 25 April 2017 — X v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-213/17)

(2017/C 239/30)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Applicant:

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 23(3) of the Dublin Regulation (1) be interpreted as meaning that Italy has become responsible for examining the application for international protection lodged by the applicant in that country on 23 October 2014, despite the fact that the Netherlands were the Member State primarily responsible on the basis of the applications for international protection, within the meaning of Article 2(d) of the Dublin Regulation, previously lodged in that country, the last of which was still under examination in the Netherlands at that time, because the Administrative Law Division of the Raad van State had not yet delivered judgment in the appeal brought by the applicant against the ruling [AWB 14/13866] of the Rechtbank [Den Haag, sitting in Middelburg] of 7 July 2014 ...? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 23(3) of the Dublin Regulation (1) be interpreted as meaning that Italy has become responsible for examining the application for international protection lodged by the applicant in that country on 23 October 2014, despite the fact that the Netherlands were the Member State primarily responsible on the basis of the applications for international protection, within the meaning of Article 2(d) of the Dublin Regulation, previously lodged in that country, the last of which was still under examination in the Netherlands at that time, because the Administrative Law Division of the Raad van State had not yet delivered judgment in the appeal brought by the applicant against the ruling [AWB 14/13866] of the Rechtbank [Den Haag, sitting in Middelburg] of 7 July 2014 ...?

1

| 2. | Does it follows from Article 18(2) of the Dublin Regulation that the application for international protection which was still under examination in the Netherlands when the claim request of 5 March 2015 was submitted should have been suspended by the Netherlands authorities immediately after that claim request had been submitted and should have been halted following the expiry of the period specified in Article 24 through revocation or amendment of the earlier decision of 11 June 2014 rejecting the asylum application of 4 June 2014? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does it follows from Article 18(2) of the Dublin Regulation that the application for international protection which was still under examination in the Netherlands when the claim request of 5 March 2015 was submitted should have been suspended by the Netherlands authorities immediately after that claim request had been submitted and should have been halted following the expiry of the period specified in Article 24 through revocation or amendment of the earlier decision of 11 June 2014 rejecting the asylum application of 4 June 2014?

| 3. | If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, has the responsibility for examining the applicant’s application for international protection not been transferred to Italy but remained with the Netherlands authorities, because the defendant has not revoked or amended the decision of 11 June 2014? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, has the responsibility for examining the applicant’s application for international protection not been transferred to Italy but remained with the Netherlands authorities, because the defendant has not revoked or amended the decision of 11 June 2014?

| 4. | Did the Netherlands authorities, by not mentioning the appeal in the second asylum procedure pending before the Administrative Law Division of the Raad van State in the Netherlands, fall short of the responsibility resting on them pursuant to Article 24(5) of the Dublin Regulation to supply the Italian authorities with such information as would enable those authorities to check whether Italy is the Member State responsible on the basis of the criteria laid down in that regulation? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Did the Netherlands authorities, by not mentioning the appeal in the second asylum procedure pending before the Administrative Law Division of the Raad van State in the Netherlands, fall short of the responsibility resting on them pursuant to Article 24(5) of the Dublin Regulation to supply the Italian authorities with such information as would enable those authorities to check whether Italy is the Member State responsible on the basis of the criteria laid down in that regulation?

| 5. | If the answer to Question 4 is in the affirmative, does that shortcoming lead to the conclusion that the responsibility for examining the applicant’s application for international protection has thereby not been transferred to Italy, but has remained with the Netherlands authorities? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the answer to Question 4 is in the affirmative, does that shortcoming lead to the conclusion that the responsibility for examining the applicant’s application for international protection has thereby not been transferred to Italy, but has remained with the Netherlands authorities?

| 6. | If the responsibility has not remained with the Netherlands, ought the Netherlands authorities then, with regard to the surrender of the applicant by Italy to the Netherlands in the context of the criminal proceedings against him, pursuant to Article 17(1) of the Dublin Regulation, in derogation from Article 3(1) of the Dublin Regulation, to have examined the application for international protection lodged by the applicant in Italy, and, by extension, ought those authorities, in all reasonableness, not to have made use of the power laid down in Article 24(1) of the Dublin Regulation to request the Italian authorities to take back the applicant? |
| --- | --- |

6.

If the responsibility has not remained with the Netherlands, ought the Netherlands authorities then, with regard to the surrender of the applicant by Italy to the Netherlands in the context of the criminal proceedings against him, pursuant to Article 17(1) of the Dublin Regulation, in derogation from Article 3(1) of the Dublin Regulation, to have examined the application for international protection lodged by the applicant in Italy, and, by extension, ought those authorities, in all reasonableness, not to have made use of the power laid down in Article 24(1) of the Dublin Regulation to request the Italian authorities to take back the applicant?

---

(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).

1

---