Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2025:311
Date: 2025-04-30
Language of the case: Finnish
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Finland

summary of the scope of the temporary protection provided for in Paragraph 7(3) of the Danish Law on Foreign Nationals, see, in particular, judgment of the Højesteret (Supreme Court, Denmark) of 6 November 2017, No 107/2017. 15 See judgment of 5 July 2018, X (C‑213/17, EU:C:2018:538, paragraphs 31 and 32). 16 C‑616/19, EU:C:2020:1010, paragraph 47. 17 See judgment of 19 December 2024, Tudmur (C‑185/24 and C‑189/24, EU:C:2024:1036, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited). 18 See judgment of 19 December 2024, Khan Yunis and Baabda (C‑123/23 and C‑202/23, EU:C:2024:1042, paragraph 60), which refers to the judgment in Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Application for asylum rejected by Denmark) (paragraphs 35 and 43). The latter judgment reproduces the guidance provided in the judgment of 20 May 2021, L.R. (Application for asylum rejected by Norway) (C‑8/20, EU:C:2021:404), since the Kingdom of Norway is a third State which applies the Dublin III Regulation pursuant to the Agreement between the European [Union] and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Iceland or Norway – Declarations (OJ 2001 L 93, p. 40), approved on behalf of the European Union by Council Decision 2001/258/EC of 15 March 2001 (OJ 2001 L 93, p. 38). 19 Emphasis added. 20 That article provides that ‘Member States shall … ensure that, where an application is rejected with regard to refugee status and/or subsidiary protection status, the reasons in fact and in law are stated in the decision and information on how to challenge a negative decision is given in writing. Member States need not provide information on how to challenge a negative decision in writing in conjunction with a decision where the applicant has been provided with such information at an earlier stage either in writing or by electronic means accessible to the applicant.’ 21 See the judgment in Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Application for asylum rejected by Denmark) (paragraph 45). 22 See the judgment in Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Application for asylum rejected by Denmark) (paragraph 47). 23 See the judgment in Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Application for asylum rejected by Denmark) (paragraph 48). 24 See Article 3(1) of the Dublin III Regulation and judgment of 16 February 2017, C. K. and Others (C‑578/16 PPU, EU:C:2017:127, paragraph 56).