Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2013:342
Date: 2013-05-30
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Asylum policy;Area of freedom, security and justice;Fundamental rights
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 30 May 2013 1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Jurisdiction of the national court — Establishing and assessing the facts in the case — Necessity of a question referred and relevance of the questions raised — Assessment by the national court — Clearly irrelevant questions and hypothetical questions put in a context not permitting a useful answer — Questions bearing no relation to the subject matter of the case in the main proceedings (Art. 267 TFEU) 2. Border controls, asylum and immigration — Asylum policy — Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application — Regulation No 343/2003 — Member States’ discretion — Option to examine an application for asylum which is the responsibility of another Member State where no circumstances exist which establish the applicability of the humanitarian clause — Failure of the Member State responsible to reply to the request to take charge — No effect (Council Regulation No 343/2003, Arts 3(2) and 15) 3. Border controls, asylum and immigration — Asylum policy — Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application — Regulation No 343/2003 — Role of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees — Breach of European Union rules on asylum by the Member State responsible — Obligation of Member States to request the Office of High Commissioner to present its views — None (Council Regulation No 343/2003; Council Directive 2005/85, Recital 29 and Arts 8(2)(b) and 21) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 28, 29) 2. Article 3(2) of Regulation No 343/2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national must be interpreted as permitting a Member State, which is not indicated as responsible by the criteria in Chapter III of that regulation, to examine an application for asylum even though no circumstances exist which establish the applicability of the humanitarian clause in Article 15 of that regulation. That possibility is not conditional on the Member State responsible under those criteria having failed to respond to a request to take back the asylum seeker concerned. (see para. 39, operative part 1) 3. The Member State in which the asylum seeker is present is not obliged, during the process of determining the Member State responsible, to request the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to present its views where it is apparent from the documents of that Office that the Member State indicated as responsible by the criteria in Chapter III of Regulation No 343/2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national is in breach of the rules of European Union law on asylum. Although Articles 8(2)(b) and 21 of Directive 2005/85 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status provide for various forms of cooperation between the UNHCR and the Member States during the latter’s examination of an application for asylum, those rules do not apply during the process of determining the Member State responsible governed by Regulation No 343/2003, as specified in recital 29 in the preamble to Directive 2005/85. However, there is nothing to prevent a Member State from requesting the UNHCR to present its views if it deems it appropriate. (see paras 45-47, operative part 2)