Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2018:588
Date: 2018-07-25
Language of the case: Swedish
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Asylum policy;Area of freedom, security and justice;Border checks
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Sweden

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 25 July 2018 Border controls, asylum and immigration — Asylum policy — Procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection — Directive 2013/32 — Examination procedure at first instance — Application which may be regarded as manifestly unfounded by the Member States — Grounds — Application by a national from a safe country of origin — Concept — Application putting forward reliable but insufficient representations having regard to the satisfactory protection offered by the applicant’s country of origin — No rules implementing the concept of safe country of origin in the Member State concerned — Precluded (European Parliament and Council Directive 2013/32, Arts 31(8)(b) and (e), 32(2), 36 and 37 and Annex I) Article 31(8)(b) 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 conjunction with Article 32(2) of that directive, must be interpreted as not allowing an application for international protection to be regarded as manifestly unfounded in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which, first, it is apparent from the information on the applicant’s country of origin that acceptable protection can be ensured for him in that country and, secondly, the applicant has provided insufficient information to justify the grant of international protection, where the Member State in which the application was lodged has not adopted rules implementing the concept of safe country of origin. A Member State cannot, therefore, rely on the rebuttable presumption laid down by the provisions of Directive 2013/32 relating to procedures based on the concept of safe country of origin, without also having fully implemented those rules with regard to the laws, regulations and administrative provisions which it is for the Member State to take. In that context, it is for each Member State to designate safe countries of origin within the meaning of that legislation, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 36 and 37 and in Annex I to Directive 2013/32, namely, in particular, the adoption by the national legislature of a list of third countries in accordance with the criteria laid down in Annex I, the enactment of additional implementation rules and modalities, and the notification to the Commission of the list of safe countries of origin, or its periodic review. As to the doubts expressed by the referring court about the possibility, on the basis of Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32, of considering an application to be manifestly unfounded on the ground that the applicant’s statements were insufficient, it should be noted that that directive has recast Directive 2005/85. Although Article 23(4)(g) of Directive 2005/85 referred to ‘insufficient’ representations from the applicant, Article 31(8)(e) of Directive 2013/32, which replaced that provision, no longer does so. (see paras 28, 31-33, 35, operative part)