# C_2010100EN.01002701.xml

| 17.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/27

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 5 February 2010 — Brahim Samba Diouf v Ministre du Travail, de l'Emploi et de l'Immigration

(Case C-69/10)

2010/C 100/40

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal administratif

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Brahim Samba Diouf

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministre du Travail, de l'Emploi et de l'Immigration

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 39 of Directive 2005/85/EC (1) to be interpreted as precluding national rules such as those established in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by Article 20(5) of the Amended Law of 5 May 2006 on the right of asylum and complementary forms of protection, pursuant to which an applicant for asylum does not have a right to appeal to a court against the administrative authority’s decision to rule on the merits of the application for international protection under the accelerated procedure? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 39 of Directive 2005/85/EC (1) to be interpreted as precluding national rules such as those established in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by Article 20(5) of the Amended Law of 5 May 2006 on the right of asylum and complementary forms of protection, pursuant to which an applicant for asylum does not have a right to appeal to a court against the administrative authority’s decision to rule on the merits of the application for international protection under the accelerated procedure?

1

| 2. | If the answer is in the negative, is the general principle of an effective remedy under Community law, prompted by Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950, to be interpreted as precluding national rules such as those established in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by Article 20(5) of the Amended Law of 5 May 2006 on the right of asylum and complementary forms of protection, pursuant to which an applicant for asylum does not have a right to appeal to a court against the administrative authority’s decision to rule on the merits of the application for international protection under the accelerated procedure? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer is in the negative, is the general principle of an effective remedy under Community law, prompted by Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950, to be interpreted as precluding national rules such as those established in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by Article 20(5) of the Amended Law of 5 May 2006 on the right of asylum and complementary forms of protection, pursuant to which an applicant for asylum does not have a right to appeal to a court against the administrative authority’s decision to rule on the merits of the application for international protection under the accelerated procedure?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13).

1

---