# C_2023189EN.01001901.xml

| 30.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Greece) lodged on 7 March 2023 — Somateio ‘Elliniko Symvoulio gia tous Prosfyges’, Astiki Mi Kerdoskopiki Etaireia ‘Ypostirixi Prosfygon sto Aigaio’ v Ypourgos Exoterikon, Ypourgos Metanastefsis kai Asylou

(Case C-134/23, Elliniko Symvoulio gia tous Prosfyges)

(2023/C 189/25)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Somateio ‘Elliniko Symvoulio gia tous Prosfyges’,

Astiki Mi Kerdoskopiki Etaireia ‘Ypostirixi Prosfygon sto Aigaio’

Defendants: Ypourgos Exoterikon,

Ypourgos Metanastefsis kai Asylou

Questions referred

| (1) | Must Article 38 of Directive 2013/32/EU, (1) read in conjunction with Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding national (regulatory) legislation classifying a third country as generally safe for certain categories of applicants for international protection where, although that country has made a legal commitment to permit readmission to its territory of those categories of applicants for international protection, it is clear that it has refused readmission for a long period of time (in this case, more than 20 months) and the possibility of its changing its position in the near future does not appear to have been investigated?
  Or |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Must Article 38 of Directive 2013/32/EU, (1) read in conjunction with Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding national (regulatory) legislation classifying a third country as generally safe for certain categories of applicants for international protection where, although that country has made a legal commitment to permit readmission to its territory of those categories of applicants for international protection, it is clear that it has refused readmission for a long period of time (in this case, more than 20 months) and the possibility of its changing its position in the near future does not appear to have been investigated?

Or

| (2) | must it be interpreted as meaning that readmission to the third country is not one of the cumulative conditions for the adoption of the national (regulatory) decision classifying a third country as generally safe for certain categories of applicants for international protection, but is one of the cumulative conditions for the adoption of an individual decision rejecting a particular application for international protection as inadmissible on the ‘safe third country’ ground?
  Or |
| --- | --- |

(2)

must it be interpreted as meaning that readmission to the third country is not one of the cumulative conditions for the adoption of the national (regulatory) decision classifying a third country as generally safe for certain categories of applicants for international protection, but is one of the cumulative conditions for the adoption of an individual decision rejecting a particular application for international protection as inadmissible on the ‘safe third country’ ground?

Or

| (3) | must it be interpreted as meaning that, where the decision rejecting the application for international protection is based on the ‘safe third country’ ground, readmission to the ‘safe third country’ need be verified only at the time of enforcement of that decision? |
| --- | --- |

(3)

must it be interpreted as meaning that, where the decision rejecting the application for international protection is based on the ‘safe third country’ ground, readmission to the ‘safe third country’ need be verified only at the time of enforcement of that decision?

---

(1)  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 (recast) (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).

---