# C_2020222EN.01000801.xml

| 6.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — PG v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

(Case C-406/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common policy on asylum and subsidiary protection - Common procedures for granting international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 46(3) - Full and ex nunc examination - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to an effective remedy - Powers and obligations of the first instance court or tribunal - No power to vary the decisions of the authorities competent in the area of international protection - National legislation providing for an obligation to adjudicate within a time limit of 60 days)

(2020/C 222/07)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PG

Defendant: Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which confers solely on courts or tribunals the power to annul decisions of the competent authorities in matters of international protection, to the exclusion of the power to amend those decisions. However, if the file is referred back to the competent administrative authority, a new decision should be adopted within a short period of time and in compliance with the assessment contained in the judgment annulling the decision. Moreover, where a national court has found — after making a full and ex nunc examination of all the relevant elements of fact and law submitted by an applicant for international protection — that, under the criteria laid down by 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, the applicant concerned must be granted such protection on the ground that he relied on in support of his application, but after which the administrative authority adopts a contrary decision without establishing that new elements have arisen that justify a new assessment of the international protection needs of the applicant, that court must, where national law does not provide it with any means of ensuring that its judgment is complied with, amend that decision which does not comply with its previous judgment and substitute its own decision for it as to the application for international protection, by disapplying, if necessary, the national law that prohibits it from proceeding in that way; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which confers solely on courts or tribunals the power to annul decisions of the competent authorities in matters of international protection, to the exclusion of the power to amend those decisions. However, if the file is referred back to the competent administrative authority, a new decision should be adopted within a short period of time and in compliance with the assessment contained in the judgment annulling the decision. Moreover, where a national court has found — after making a full and ex nunc examination of all the relevant elements of fact and law submitted by an applicant for international protection — that, under the criteria laid down by 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, the applicant concerned must be granted such protection on the ground that he relied on in support of his application, but after which the administrative authority adopts a contrary decision without establishing that new elements have arisen that justify a new assessment of the international protection needs of the applicant, that court must, where national law does not provide it with any means of ensuring that its judgment is complied with, amend that decision which does not comply with its previous judgment and substitute its own decision for it as to the application for international protection, by disapplying, if necessary, the national law that prohibits it from proceeding in that way;

| 2. | Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which sets a period of 60 days for the court hearing an action against a decision rejecting an application for international protection to give a ruling, provided that that court is able to ensure, within that period, that the substantive and procedural rules which EU law affords to the applicant are effective. If that is not the case, that court must disapply the national legislation laying down the period for adjudication and, once that period has elapsed, deliver its judgment as promptly as possible. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which sets a period of 60 days for the court hearing an action against a decision rejecting an application for international protection to give a ruling, provided that that court is able to ensure, within that period, that the substantive and procedural rules which EU law affords to the applicant are effective. If that is not the case, that court must disapply the national legislation laying down the period for adjudication and, once that period has elapsed, deliver its judgment as promptly as possible.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.

---