Provisional text
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)
16 April 2026 (*)
( References for a preliminary ruling – Border controls, asylum and immigration – Directive
2013/32/EU – Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection – Application for international protection – Article 43 – Border procedure – Classification of a procedure conducted in a place of detention
located geographically in the territory of a Member State, but treated by national law as a place at the border – Right to enter the territory
of that Member State after a period of four weeks – Article 31(7) – Priority examination of an application for international protection – Directive
2013/33/EU – Standards for the reception of applicants for international protection – Article 8 – Detention in the same place on the basis of two different decisions )
In Joined Cases C‑50/24 to
C‑56/24 [Danané and Others], (i)
SEVEN REQUESTS for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Conseil du contentieux des étrangers (Council for asylum and immigration proceedings, Belgium), made by decision of 22 January 2024, received at the Court on 26 January 2024, in the proceedings
X (C‑50/24),
X (C‑51/24),
X (C‑52/24),
X (C‑53/24),
X (C‑54/24),
X (C‑55/24),
X (C‑56/24)
v
Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides,
THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),
composed of M.L. Arastey Sahún, President of the Chamber, J. Passer (Rapporteur), E. Regan, D. Gratsias and B. Smulders, Judges,
Advocate General: N. Emiliou,
Registrar: G. Chiapponi, Administrator,
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 27 February 2025,
after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
–        X (C‑51/24) and X (C‑52/24), by S. Manesse, avocat,
–        X (C‑53/24), by Z. Chihaoui, advocaat,
–        the Belgian Government, by M. Jacobs, C. Pochet and M. Van Regemorter, acting as Agents,
–        the Czech Government, by A. Edelmannová, M. Smolek and J. Vláčíl, acting as Agents,
–        the German Government, by J. Möller and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents,
–        the Italian Government, by G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by W. Ferrante, avvocato dello Stato,
–        the European Commission, by A. Azéma, F. Blanc-Simonetti and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 26 June 2025,
makes the following
Judgment
1        These requests for a preliminary ruling concern the interpretation of Article 31(7) and (8), and Articles 43 and 46 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 (OJ 2013 L 180
p. 60), read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and Article 8 of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 96).
2        The requests have been made in seven sets of proceedings between third country nationals, who arrived in Belgium on board flights that landed at Brussels airport (Belgium) and the Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides (Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons, Belgium)
(‘the CGRA’) concerning the latter’s decisions rejecting their applications for international protection.
The legal framework
European Union law
Directive 2013/32
3        Recitals 18 and 38 of Directive 2013/32 state the following:
‘(18)      It is in the interests of both Member States and applicants for international protection that a decision is made as soon as possible on applications for international protection, without prejudice to an adequate and complete examination being carried out.
…
(38)      Many applications for international protection are made at the border or in a transit zone of a Member State prior to a decision on the entry of the applicant. Member States should be able to provide for admissibility and/or substantive examination procedures which would make it possible for such applications to be decided upon at those locations in well-defined circumstances.’
4        Article 2(f) of that directive provides:
‘For the purpose of this Directive:
…
(f)      “determining authority” means any quasi-judicial or administrative body in a Member State responsible for examining applications for international protection competent to take decisions at first instance in such cases;’
5        Article 4(1) and (2) of that directive provides:
‘1.      Member States shall designate for all procedures a determining authority which will be responsible for an appropriate examination of applications in accordance with this Directive. …
2.      Member States may provide that an authority other than that referred to in paragraph 1 shall be responsible for the purposes of:
…
(b)      granting or refusing permission to enter in the framework of the procedure provided for in Article 43, subject to the conditions as set out therein and on the basis of the reasoned opinion of the determining authority.’
6        Article 26(1) of that directive provides:
‘Member States shall not hold a person in detention for the sole reason that he or she is an applicant. The grounds for and conditions of detention and the guarantees available to detained applicants shall be in accordance with Directive [2013/33].’
7        Article 31 of that directive, entitled ‘Examination procedure’, provides in paragraphs 1, 2, 7 and 8:
‘1.      Member States shall process applications for international protection in an examination procedure in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees of Chapter II.
2.      Member States shall ensure that the examination procedure is concluded as soon as possible, without prejudice to an adequate and complete examination.
…
7.      Member States may prioritise an examination of an application for international protection in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees of Chapter II in particular:
(a)      where the application is likely to be well-founded;
(b)      where the applicant is vulnerable, within the meaning of Article 22 of Directive [2013/33], or is in need of special procedural guarantees, in particular unaccompanied minors.
8.      Member States may provide that an examination procedure in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees of Chapter II be accelerated and/or conducted at the border or in transit zones in accordance with Article 43 if:
(a)      the applicant, in submitting his or her application and presenting the facts, has only raised issues that are not relevant to the examination of whether he or she qualifies as a beneficiary of international protection by virtue of Directive 2011/95/EU
[of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9)]; or
(b)      the applicant is from a safe country of origin within the meaning of this Directive; or
(c)      the applicant has misled the authorities by presenting false information or documents or by withholding relevant information or documents with respect to his or her identity and/or nationality that could have had a negative impact on the decision; or
(d)      it is likely that, in bad faith, the applicant has destroyed or disposed of an identity or travel document that would have helped establish his or her identity or nationality; or
(e)      the applicant has made clearly inconsistent and contradictory, clearly false or obviously improbable representations which contradict sufficiently verified country-of-origin information, thus making his or her claim clearly unconvincing in relation to whether he or she qualifies as a beneficiary of international protection by virtue of Directive [2011/95]; or
(f)      the applicant has introduced a subsequent application for international protection that is not inadmissible in accordance with Article 40(5); or
(g)      the applicant is making an application merely in order to delay or frustrate the enforcement of an earlier or imminent decision which would result in his or her removal; or
(h)      the applicant entered the territory of the Member State unlawfully or prolonged his or her stay unlawfully and, without good reason, has either not presented himself or herself to the authorities or not made an application for international protection as soon as possible, given the circumstances of his or her entry; or
(i)      the applicant refuses to comply with an obligation to have his or her fingerprints taken in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the establishment of Eurodac for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person and on requests for the comparison with Eurodac data by Member States’ law enforcement authorities and Europol for law enforcement purposes [and amending Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011] establishing a European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 1)]; or
(j)      the applicant may, for serious reasons, be considered a danger to the national security or public order of the Member State, or the applicant has been forcibly expelled for serious reasons of public security or public order under national law.’
8        Article 33(2) of that directive provides:
‘Member States may consider an application for international protection as inadmissible only if:
(a)      another Member State has granted international protection;
(b)      a country which is not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum for the applicant …;
(c)      a country which is not a Member State is considered as a safe third country for the applicant …;
(d)      the application is a subsequent application, where no new elements or findings … have arisen or have been presented by the applicant; or
(e)      a dependant of the applicant lodges an application, after he or she has … consented to have his or her case be part of an application lodged on his or her behalf, and there are no facts relating to the dependant’s situation which justify a separate application.’
9        Article 40 of that directive, entitled ‘Subsequent application’, is worded as follows:
‘Where a person who has applied for international protection in a Member State makes further representations or a subsequent application in the same Member State, that Member State shall examine these further representations or the elements of the subsequent application in the framework of the examination of the previous application or in the framework of the examination of the decision under review or appeal, in so far as the competent authorities can take into account and consider all the elements underlying the further representations or subsequent application within this framework.’
10      Article 43 of that directive, entitled ‘Border procedures’, provides:
‘1.      Member States may provide for procedures, in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees of Chapter II, in order to decide at the border or transit zones of the Member State on:
(a)      the admissibility of an application, pursuant to Article 33, made at such locations; and/or
(b)      the substance of an application in a procedure pursuant to Article 31(8).
2.      Member States shall ensure that a decision in the framework of the procedures provided for in paragraph 1 is taken within a reasonable time. When a decision has not been taken within four weeks, the applicant shall be granted entry to the territory of the Member State in order for his or her application to be processed in accordance with the other provisions of this Directive.
3.      In the event of arrivals involving a large number of third-country nationals or stateless persons lodging applications for international protection at the border or in a transit zone, which makes it impossible in practice to apply there the provisions of paragraph 1, those procedures may also be applied where and for as long as these third-country nationals or stateless persons are accommodated normally at locations in proximity to the border or transit zone.’
11      Article 46 of Directive 2013/32, entitled ‘The right to an effective remedy’, provides in paragraph 1:
‘Member States shall ensure that applicants have the right to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal, against the following:
(a)      a decision taken on their application for international protection, including a decision:
…
(iii)      taken at the border or in the transit zones of a Member State as described in Article 43(1);
…
…’
Directive 2013/33
12      Recital 18 of Directive 2013/33 states:
‘Applicants who are in detention should be treated with full respect for human dignity and their reception should be specifically designed to meet their needs in that situation. …’
13      Article 6 of that directive, entitled ‘Documentation’, provides in paragraphs 1 and 2:
‘1.      Member States shall ensure that, within three days of the lodging of an application for international protection, the applicant is provided with a document issued in his or her own name certifying his or her status as an applicant or testifying that he or she is allowed to stay on the territory of the Member State while his or her application is pending or being examined.
…
2.      Member States may exclude application of this Article when the applicant is in detention and during the examination of an application for international protection made at the border or within the context of a procedure to decide on the right of the applicant to enter the territory of a Member State. …’
14      Article 8 of that directive, entitled ‘Detention’, provides:
‘1.      Member States shall not hold a person in detention for the sole reason that he or she is an applicant in accordance with Directive [2013/32].
2.      When it proves necessary and on the basis of an individual assessment of each case, Member States may detain an applicant, if other less coercive alternative measures cannot be applied effectively.
3.      An applicant may be detained only:
(a)      in order to determine or verify his or her identity or nationality;
(b)      in order to determine those elements on which the application for international protection is based which could not be obtained in the absence of detention, in particular when there is a risk of absconding of the applicant;
(c)      in order to decide, in the context of a procedure, on the applicant’s right to enter the territory;
…
The grounds for detention shall be laid down in national law.
…’
15      Article 9 of that directive provides in paragraphs 1, 3 and 5:
‘1.      An applicant shall be detained only for as short a period as possible and shall be kept in detention only for as long as the grounds set out in Article 8(3) are applicable.
Administrative procedures relevant to the grounds for detention set out in Article 8(3) shall be executed with due diligence. Delays in administrative procedures that cannot be attributed to the applicant shall not justify a continuation of detention.
…
3.      Where detention is ordered by administrative authorities, Member States shall provide for a speedy judicial review of the lawfulness of detention to be conducted ex officio and/or at the request of the applicant.
…
5.      Detention shall be reviewed by a judicial authority at reasonable intervals of time, ex officio and/or at the request of the applicant concerned, in particular whenever it is of a prolonged duration, relevant circumstances arise or new information becomes available which may affect the lawfulness of detention.’
Regulation (EU) 2016/399
16      Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ 2016 L 77, p. 1) provides:
‘For the purposes of this Regulation[,] the following definitions apply:
(1)      “internal borders” means:
(a)      the common land borders … of the Member States;
(b)      the airports of the Member States for internal flights;
(c)      sea, river and lake ports of the Member States for regular internal ferry connections;
(2)      “external borders” means the Member States’ land borders …, sea borders and their airports, river …, sea … and lake ports, provided that they are not internal borders[.]’
Belgian law
The Law of 15 December 1980
17      Article 51/5, paragraph 1, of the loi du 15 décembre 1980 sur l’accès au territoire, le séjour, l’établissement et l’éloignement des étrangers (Law of 15 December 1980 on the admission to the territory, residence, settlement and removal of foreign nationals) (Moniteur belge of 31 December 1980, p. 14584), in the version applicable to the disputes in the main proceedings (‘the Law of 15 December 1980’), provides:
‘As soon as a foreign national has lodged, at the border or within the Kingdom, an initial application for international protection or a subsequent application for international protection with one of the authorities designated by the King pursuant to Article 50, § 3, subparagraph 2, in accordance with European legislation binding Belgium, the Minister or his or her representative shall determine the State responsible for examining that application.
To that end, where on the basis of an individual examination, there is a not insignificant risk of the person absconding, and only in so far as the detention is proportionate and no other less coercive measure can effectively be applied, the foreign national may be detained in a designated place for the period needed to determine the State responsible for examining the application for international protection, without that period of detention exceeding six weeks.
…’
18      Article 57/6, paragraph 2, of that law provides:
‘The [CGRA] shall make the decision as a matter of priority, where:
1°      the applicant is in a designated place as referred to in Articles 74/8, § 1 or 74/9 §§ 2 and 3, or is subject to a security measure as referred to in Article 68;
…’
19      Article 57/6/4 of that law transposed Article 43 of Directive 2013/32 into Belgian law and provides as follows:
‘In respect of a foreign national who attempts to enter the Kingdom without satisfying the conditions laid down in Articles 2 and 3 and who has lodged an application for international protection at the border, the [CGRA] shall be competent to declare the application to be inadmissible pursuant to Article 57/6, § 3 or to make a decision on the substance of the application in one of the situations referred to in Article 57/6/1, § 1, subparagraph 1, points (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) or (j).
If subparagraph 1 cannot be applied, the [CGRA] shall decide that a subsequent examination is necessary, after which the applicant shall be authorised by the Minister or his or her representative to enter the Kingdom in accordance with Article 74/5, § 4, 4°.
If the [CGRA] has not taken a decision within four weeks of receipt of an application for international protection forwarded by the Minister or his or her representative, the applicant shall also be authorised by the Minister or his or her representative to enter the Kingdom pursuant to Article 74/5, § 4, 5°.’
20      Under Article 74/5, paragraphs 1, 2 and 4,
of the Law of 15 December 1980:
‘§ 1.      The following persons may be detained in a designated place at the border pending authorisation to enter the Kingdom or their being turned back:
1°      a foreign national who, pursuant to the provisions of the present Law, may be turned back by the border control authorities;
2°      a foreign national who attempts to enter the Kingdom without fulfilling the conditions laid down in Articles 2 and 3 and who makes an application for international protection at the border.
No foreign national may be detained on the sole ground that he or she has made an application for international protection.
§ 2.      The King may designate other places within the Kingdom, which shall be treated in the same way as the place referred to in § 1. A foreign national detained in one of those other places shall not be regarded as having been authorised to enter the Kingdom.
…
§ 4.      The following person shall be authorised to enter the Kingdom:
…
5°      a foreign national referred to in § 1, 2°, in respect of whom a decision has not been taken by the [CGRA] within four weeks of receipt of the application for international protection forwarded by the Minister or his or her representative.’
21      Article 74/6 of that law states:
‘§ 1.      Where it proves necessary on the basis of an individual assessment and a less coercive measure cannot be applied effectively, the Minister or his or her representative may detain an applicant for international protection in a designated place within the Kingdom:
1°      in order to determine or verify the applicant’s identity or nationality; or
2°      in order to determine the elements on which the application for international protection is based, and which could not be obtained if the applicant were not detained, in particular where there is a risk of the applicant absconding; or
…’
22      Article 74/8 of that law provides:
‘§ 1.      The necessary measures may be taken to ensure that the person concerned does not leave, without the required authorisation, the place where he or she is detained, made available to the government or held pursuant to Article 7, Article 8bis, § 4, Article 27, Article 29, subparagraph 2, Article 44septies, § 1, Article 51/5, § 1, subparagraph 2, or § 4, subparagraph 3, Article 51/5/1, § 1, subparagraph 2, or § 2, subparagraph 3, Article 57/32, § 2, subparagraph 2, Article 74/5 or Article 74/6.
…
§ 2.      The King may lay down the regime and the operating rules applicable to the place where the foreign national is detained, made available to the government or held pursuant to the provisions referred to in § 1, subparagraph 1.
…’
The Ministerial Decree of 25 October 2010
23      The arrêté ministériel du 25 octobre 2010 de désignation des lieux d’hébergement au sens de l’article 74/8, paragraphe 1er, de la loi du 15 décembre 1980 sur l’accès au territoire, le séjour, l’établissement et l’éloignement des étrangers (Ministerial Decree of 25 October 2010 designating accommodation facilities for the purposes of Article 74/8, paragraph 1, of the Law of 15 December 1980 on the admission to the territory, residence, settlement and removal of foreign nationals) (Moniteur belge of 3 November 2010, p. 65884) states, in Article 1 thereof:
‘The accommodation facilities set out below are facilities referred to for the purposes of Article 74/8, § 1 of the Law of 15 December 1980 …:
–        Blokstraat 64-68-70-72-74,
in 9170 Sint-Gillis-Waas.’
The Royal Decree of 17 February 2012
24      The arrêté royal du 17 février 2012 déterminant un lieu visé par l’article 74/8, paragraphe 2, de la loi du 15 décembre 1980 sur l’accès au territoire, le séjour, l’établissement et l’éloignement des étrangers (Royal Decree of 17 February 2012 designating a facility referred to in Article 74/8, paragraph 2, of the Law of 15 December 1980 on the admission to the territory, residence, settlement and removal of foreign nationals) (Moniteur belge of 15 March 2012, p. 15767) provides, in Article 1 thereof:
‘The “Centre de Transit Caricole” [(Caricole Transit Centre)] building, located at chaussée de Tervuren 302, 1820 Steenokkerzeel, shall be a facility covered by Article 74/8 § 2 of the Law of 15 December 1980 …’
The disputes in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
25      The facts of the disputes in the main proceedings may be summarised as follows.
26      The applicants in the main proceedings, third-country nationals who arrived by aeroplane at Brussels airport between September and October 2023, submitted applications for international protection at that location on the day of their arrival or the day after their arrival.
27      Following those applications, the applicants were refused entry on the ground that they failed to comply with the requirements laid down by the
Law of 15 December 1980, and that
was followed by decisions for their
‘detention in a designated place at the border’, in the present case in the ‘Caricole Transit Centre’, located in the vicinity of Brussels airport, or in the accommodation facility at Sint-Gillis-Waas (Belgium), issued by the Minister for the Interior on the basis of Article 74/5 paragraph 1, first subparagraph, 2°, of that law, places that are not geographically located at the border or in a transit zone, but which, under Article 74/5, paragraph 2, of that law, are treated as places ‘at the border’.
28      In Belgium, at the time of the facts giving rise to the disputes in the main proceedings, there were no places of detention at the borders or in transit zones, since the infrastructure within Belgian airports proved to be inadequate for the reception of applicants for international protection and to ensure respect for their fundamental rights.
29      It follows from the order for reference that the decisions for their
‘detention in a designated place at the border’, referred to in paragraph 27 above, constitute decisions based on Article 8(3)(c) of Directive 2013/33, which authorises the detention of an applicant for international protection in order to rule on his or her right to enter the territory.
30      At the end of a period of four weeks, the applicants in the main proceedings were authorised, in accordance with Article 43(2) of Directive 2013/32, to enter Belgian territory, but were held in detention in the places referred to in paragraph 27 above pursuant to decisions taken by the CGRA within that period, on the basis of Article 74/5, paragraphs 4 and 5, and Article 74/6, paragraph 1, first subparagraph, 2°, of the Law of 15 December 1980. It follows from the order for reference that those decisions, in so far as they keep the applicants in the main proceedings in detention, constitute decisions based on Article 8(3)(b) of Directive 2013/33, which authorise the detention of an applicant in order to determine the elements on which his or her application for international protection is based and which could not be obtained without that detention, in particular where there is a risk that the applicant will abscond.
31      In Cases C‑51/24 and C‑53/24, the applicants in the main proceedings were heard by the CGRA at a personal interview before the decision was taken to keep them in detention, as referred to in the preceding paragraph. The applicants in the main proceedings in Cases C‑52/24 and C‑54/24 to C‑56/24
were heard after the adoption of that decision concerning them.
32      Following those interviews, the CGRA adopted decisions refusing to grant refugee status and subsidiary protection status and, in Case C‑51/24, a decision declaring the application to be inadmissible.
33      The applicants in the main proceedings brought actions against those decisions before the Conseil du contentieux des étrangers (Council for asylum and immigration proceedings, Belgium), which is the referring court.
34      Some of the parties claimed before that court that Article 57/6/4 of the Law of 15 December 1980 had been infringed.
35      That court states that that provision transposed Article 43(1) and (2) of Directive 2013/32 into national law. It explains that persons such as the applicants in the main proceedings fall within the scope of Article 43 of that directive, as regards the examination of their application for international protection in a border procedure, and Article 8(3)(c) of Directive 2013/33, as regards their being held in a place of detention located in the territory but treated by legislation, as a place at the border.
36      The Conseil du contentieux des étrangers (Council for asylum and immigration proceedings) has doubts as to the compatibility with EU law of the provisions of Belgian law under which, first, the border procedure is applied to persons detained in such places and, second, after the expiry of the four-week period laid down in Article 43(2) of Directive 2013/32, such persons are kept in detention in the same place
on the basis of another ground, even though that place is no longer classified as a ‘place at the border’, but as a ‘place in the territory’.
37      In those circumstances, the Conseil du contentieux des étrangers (Council for asylum and immigration proceedings) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘(1)      Does a procedure for examining an application for international protection made at the border or in a transit zone by an applicant who, during that procedure, is detained in a place located geographically in the national territory but treated by legislation as a place at the border fall within the scope of Article 43 of Directive [2013/32]?
(2)      Does the examination of such an application for international protection made by an applicant who, after the four-week period laid down in Article 43(2) of Directive [2013/32], is automatically admitted to the national territory under national law, but on the basis of a new detention decision remains detained at the same place of detention initially considered to be a place at the border and now categorised by the authorities as a place in the national territory, still fall within the scope of Article 43 of Directive [2013/32]?
-      [Can] the same place of detention, in the same international protection procedure, be initially treated by legislation as a place at the border and, after the applicant has been authorised to enter the national territory owing to the expiry of the four-week time limit or following a decision to conduct a subsequent examination, be regarded as a place in the national territory?
-      What is the implication of the applicant’s detention in the same place, which is geographically situated in the national territory but which was treated initially as a place at the border and subsequently categorised by the Belgian authorities as a place of detention in the national territory owing to the expiry of the four-week period, for the temporal and substantive competence of the determining authority?
(3.1)      [Can] a determining authority which initiated an examination of an application for international protection in a border procedure and which allows the four-week time limit laid down in Article 43(2) of Directive [2013/32] for taking a decision on that application to elapse or which has previously taken a decision to carry out a subsequent examination, even though all the investigative steps, including the personal interview, were carried out prior to the expiry of the time limit, continue the examination of that application as a matter of priority as provided for in Article 31(7) of that directive, while the applicant remains detained, further to a decision of another authority, in the same place of detention, initially treated as a place at the border, on the ground that his or her detention is necessary “in order to determine [the] elements on which the application for international protection is based[, and]
which could not be obtained if the applicant were not detained, in particular where there is a risk of the [applicant absconding]”?
(3.2)      [Can] a determining authority which initiated an examination of an application for international protection in a border procedure and which allows the four-week time limit laid down in Article 43(2) of Directive [2013/32] for taking a decision on that application to elapse or which has previously taken a decision to carry out a subsequent examination, without carrying out a personal interview with the applicant within this period, continue the examination of that application as a matter of priority as provided for in Article 31(7) of that directive, while the applicant remains detained, further to a decision of another authority, in the same place of detention initially treated as a place at the border, on the ground that his or her detention is necessary “in order to determine [the] elements on which the application for international protection is based[, and] which could not be obtained if the [applicant were not detained], in particular when there is a risk of the [applicant absconding]”?
(4)      Is such an application of national legislation compatible with the exceptional nature of the applicant’s detention deriving from Article 8 of Directive [2013/33] and the general objective of Directive [2013/32]?
(5)      Must [Article 31(7) and (8), and Articles] 43 and 46 of Directive [2013/32], in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, be interpreted as meaning that the [Conseil du contentieux des étrangers
(Council for Asylum and Immigration Proceedings)], when hearing an action against a decision taken in a procedure initiated at the border, must raise of its own motion a failure to comply with the four-week time limit?’
38      By decision of the President of the Court of Justice of 14 March 2024, Cases C‑50/24 to C‑56/24 were joined for the purposes of the written and oral parts of the procedure and the judgment.
The questions referred for a preliminary ruling
The first question
39      By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 43 of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as meaning that a procedure for examining an application for international protection made at the border or in a transit zone by an applicant who, for the duration of that procedure, is detained in a place in the territory of the Member State concerned which is not geographically located at the border of that State, but which is treated by the national legislation as a place at that border, falls within the scope of Article 43.
40      Article 43(1) of Directive 2013/32 gives Member States the possibility to make provision, at their borders or in their transit zones, for specific procedures in order to decide on the admissibility, under Article 33 of that directive, of an application for international protection made at such locations or on the substance of that application in one of the cases provided for in Article 31(8) of that directive, provided that those procedures comply with the basic principles and guarantees set out in Chapter II of that directive. Under Article 43(2) of Directive 2013/32, those specific procedures must be carried out within a reasonable time, it being understood that if a decision rejecting the application for international protection has not been taken within a period of four weeks, the Member State concerned must grant the applicant entry to its territory and the application must be dealt with after that four-week period in accordance with the normal procedure (judgment of 14 May 2020, Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság Dél-alföldi Regionális Igazgatóság, C‑924/19 PPU and C‑925/19 PPU, EU:C:2020:367, paragraph 235).
41      In accordance with the Court’s case-law, when interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider its wording, the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (see judgments of 17 November 1983, Merck, 292/82, EU:C:1983:335, paragraph 12, and of 1 August 2025, Alace and Canpelli, C‑758/24 and
C‑759/24, EU:C:2025:591, paragraph 91).
42      As regards the wording of Article 43 of Directive 2013/32, it should be noted that that provision does not contain any reference to detention nor, therefore, to the place of any detention in the context of a border procedure.
43      It follows that the wording of that provision does not, in itself, make it possible to exclude from its scope the examination of an application for international protection made at the border or in a transit zone, where the place in which the applicant is detained is not geographically located at the border of the Member State concerned, but is treated by national legislation as such a place for the purposes of a border procedure.
44      That being said, it follows from Article 43(2) of Directive 2013/32 that, in the absence of a decision rejecting the application for international protection within four weeks, the applicant is to be granted the right to enter the territory of the Member State concerned. It must be inferred from this that, as long as that period has not expired, such an applicant may be regarded, for the purposes of a border procedure, as not being authorised to enter the territory of that Member State.
45      That suggests, as the Advocate General observes, in essence, in point 44 of his Opinion, that the presence of an applicant for international protection in a place of detention situated in the territory of the Member State concerned but not geographically at the border of that State does not preclude the application of the border procedure.
46      As regards the context of Article 43 of Directive 2013/32, it should be noted that none of the provisions of that directive, in particular Article 26(1), which is the provision on detention, and Article 31(8), which authorises Member States to use the procedures laid down in Article 43 in the cases provided for therein, contains any indication from which it may be concluded that Member States are not to be authorised, in a border procedure within the meaning of Article 43, to detain an applicant for international protection in a place which is not geographically located at the border of a given Member State.
47      As regards Directive 2013/33, although it sets out, in Articles 8 to 11, the requirements applicable to the detention of applicants for international protection and refers, in a number of its provisions, to the situation of such applicants during a procedure conducted under Article 43 of Directive 2013/32, none of the provisions of Directive 2013/33 requires that, in such a context, the applicant is to be detained at the border or in a transit zone.
48      Lastly, with regard to the objectives pursued by Article 43 of Directive 2013/32, it follows from recital 38 of that directive that border procedures are intended to enable Member States to take decisions on the numerous applications for international protection made at the border or in a transit zone ‘prior to a decision on the entry of the applicant [to the territory]’.
49      Member States are thus authorised to require applicants for international protection to remain, for a maximum period of four weeks, at their borders or in one of their transit zones, in order to examine, before taking a decision on their right to enter their territory, whether their applications are inadmissible, pursuant to Article 33 of Directive 2013/32, or whether they must be declared unfounded in accordance with Article 31(8) of that directive (judgment of 14 May 2020, Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság Dél-alföldi Regionális Igazgatóság, C‑924/19 PPU and
C‑925/19 PPU, EU:C:2020:367, paragraph 237).
50      Thus, the objective of the border procedures is to enable Member States to conduct an initial screening of the applications for international protection before formally authorising entry into their territory only to third-country nationals whose applications are not rejected on that occasion. As the Advocate General observes in point 38 of his Opinion, the fulfilment of that objective is not affected by the physical location of the applicant during the examination of his or her application, nor does it require that it take place at the borders of those Member States.
51      By contrast, if Article 43 of Directive 2013/32 were to be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of implementing a border procedure, the detention of an applicant for international protection must necessarily be effected at the border of the Member State concerned or in a transit zone, the implementation of that procedure could, in certain cases, prove to be excessively difficult, or even impossible, or, in some circumstances, have a negative impact on compliance with the guarantees offered to applicants by Directives 2013/32 and 2013/33 and, in general, on respect for their fundamental rights and, particularly, on their human dignity, contrary to the objective stated in recital 18 of the latter directive.
52      In particular, as the Advocate General stated, in essence, in points 39 and 40 of his Opinion, depending on the geographical and infrastructural specificities of the Member States, the compulsory detention of applicants at the border or in a transit zone could lead to structural and spatial limitations, or even to the use of infrastructure that is incompatible with the basic principles and guarantees of Chapter II of Directive 2013/32, as well as the guarantees and conditions laid down in Articles 9 to 11 of Directive 2013/33 and, as the case may be, with respect for their dignity.
53      Furthermore, as regards Member States that have large maritime border areas, the application of Article 43 of Directive 2013/32 could, as the Italian Government has observed, be excessively difficult, or even impossible, if Article 43
were to be interpreted as meaning that Member States must examine the application for international protection at their geographical border, without any possibility of transferring the applicant to a place in the national territory treated as a place at the border.
54      In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question is that Article 43 of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as meaning that a procedure for examining an application for international protection made at the border or in a transit zone by an applicant who, for the duration of that procedure, is detained in a place in the territory of the Member State concerned which is not geographically located at the border of that State, but which is treated by the national legislation as a place at that border, falls within the scope of Article 43.
The second question
55      By the first two parts of its second question, the referring court asks, first, in essence, whether Article 43 of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as meaning that the examination of an application for international protection after the four-week period laid down in Article 43(2) of that directive has expired still falls within the scope of Article 43. Second, that court is uncertain as to the compatibility with EU law of the fact that the same
place of detention is regarded, in a procedure for examining an application for international protection, initially as a ‘place at the border’ and then, after the expiry of that four-week period, as a ‘place in the territory’.
56      As is apparent from the case-law referred to in paragraph 40 above, the Court has already stated that, under Article 43(2) of Directive 2013/32, the specific procedures, provided for in Article 43(1) of that directive, must be carried out within a reasonable time, it being understood that if a decision rejecting the application for international protection has not been taken within a period of four weeks, the Member State concerned must grant the applicant entry to its territory and the application must be dealt with after that period has expired in accordance with the other provisions of that directive.
57      Furthermore, in accordance with Article 43(3) of Directive 2013/32, in the event of arrivals involving a large number of third-country nationals or stateless persons lodging applications for international protection at the border or in a transit zone, which makes it impossible in practice to apply there the provisions of Article 43(1), those procedures may also be applied where and for as long as those third-country nationals or stateless persons are accommodated normally at locations in proximity to the border or transit zone.
58      It follows that, subject to the applicability of Article 43(3) of that directive, the examination of such an application after the period of four weeks has expired no longer falls within the scope of the border procedures provided for in Article 43(1).
59      As regards the question whether, in a procedure for examining an application for international protection,
the same place of detention
may be treated initially as a ‘place at the border’ and subsequently, after the applicant has been authorised to enter the territory due to the expiry of the four-week period, be regarded as a ‘place in the territory’, it should be recalled that, as is apparent, in essence, from the examination of the first question, Article 43 of Directive 2013/32 does not preclude the applicant from being detained in a place treated as a place ‘at the border’ but situated within the territory when examining such an application in the context of a border procedure.
60      Consequently, where, in accordance with Article 43(2) of Directive 2013/32, the applicant is authorised to enter the territory, but his or her continued detention proves to be necessary, in particular having regard to the ground laid down in Article 8(3)(b) of Directive 2013/33, Article 43(2) does not preclude that measure from continuing in the same place of detention, now regarded as a ‘place in the territory’.
61      Moreover, nothing in the wording of the other provisions of Directive 2013/32 precludes such a possibility. In particular, Article 26 of that directive, relating to detention, which states in paragraph 1 that the grounds for and the conditions of detention and the guarantees available to detained applicants must be in accordance with Directive 2013/33, does not in any way limit that possibility.
62      It follows that the Member States are free to apply
a dual classification of the same place of detention, provided that they ensure that the examination procedures carried out there comply, in accordance with Article 31(1) and Article 43(1) of Directive 2013/32, with the basic principles and guarantees referred to in Chapter II of that directive, and provided that those States also guarantee, in accordance with Article 26(1) of that directive, that the grounds for and the conditions of detention and the guarantees provided for in order to protect the rights of detained applicants are in accordance with Directive 2013/33, in particular Articles 8 and 9 thereof.
63      However, for the benefit of those applicants whose legal situation, on expiry of the four-week period referred to in Article 43(2) of Directive 2013/32, has been altered without their material situation in the same place of detention being altered, it is also necessary that the Member State concerned ensures that those applicants are informed, at the latest when the second decision keeping them in detention on the basis of Article 8 of Directive 2013/33 is adopted, of that change in their legal situation, namely that they are authorised to enter the territory as a result of the expiry of that period. In addition, in so far as that Member State has implemented, during the border procedure, Article 6(2) of Directive 2013/33 authorising it to exclude the application of that article, it must, where appropriate, deliver to the applicant the document referred to in paragraph 1 of that article or the equivalent evidence referred to in paragraph 2 thereof.
64      In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first two parts of the second question is, first, that Article 43 of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as meaning that the examination of an application for international protection, after the four-week period laid down in Article 43(2) of that directive has expired, no longer falls within the scope of Article 43, but falls within the scope of the other provisions of that directive and, second, that, in a procedure for examining such an application, that directive does not preclude the same place of detention from being treated initially as a ‘place at the border’ and subsequently, after the applicant has been authorised to enter the territory on account of the expiry of that period, from being regarded as a ‘place in the territory’. The Member State concerned must, however, ensure that that applicant is informed, at the latest when the decision keeping him or her in detention on the basis of Article 8 of Directive 2013/33 is adopted, of the change in his or her legal situation, namely that, as a result of the expiry of that period he or she is authorised to enter the territory and, where appropriate, that he or she is to be provided with the document referred to in Article 6(1) of Directive 2013/33 or equivalent evidence, in accordance with Article 6(2) thereof.
65      By the third part of its second question, the referring court asks the Court of Justice, in essence, about the consequences of keeping the applicant in detention in the same place, treated initially as a ‘place at the border’ and subsequently classified as a ‘place in the territory’ on account of the expiry of the four-week period laid down in Article 43(2) of Directive 2013/32, on the temporal and substantive competence of the determining authority.
66      Article 2(f) of that directive defines the determining authority as any quasi-judicial or administrative body in a Member State responsible for examining applications for international protection and competent to take decisions at first instance in such cases.
67      It also follows from Article 4(1) of that directive that Member States are to designate for all procedures a determining authority which will be responsible for an appropriate examination of those applications.
68      In those circumstances, it should be noted, as the Advocate General observed in point 62 of his Opinion, that the continued detention of the applicant and the change of the legal classification of the place of that detention at the four-week mark, laid down in Article 43(2) of Directive 2013/32, in themselves, have no bearing on the competence of the determining authority.
69      It is rather the expiry of that period, in that it involves the shift from the border procedure to another procedure for examining applications for international protection, which is liable, where the Member State concerned has designated different determining authorities to conduct those procedures, to have an impact on the decision-making competence relating to those applications. In the present case, it appears from the order for reference that it is the same authority, namely the CGRA, which is the determining authority both in the border procedure and in the other subsequent procedure.
70      The expiry of that four-week period also has the consequence that the material limitations, defined in Article 43(1) of Directive 2013/32, and the temporal limitations inherent in that period, set out in Article 43(2) of that directive, of decisions that may be adopted in border procedures are no longer applicable to the determining authority ruling now in another procedure.
71      The answer to the third part of the second question is therefore that Article 43 of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as meaning that the continued detention of an applicant for international protection and the change in the legal classification of the place of that detention, in accordance with national legislation, after the expiry of the four-week period laid down in Article 43(2) of that directive, in themselves, have no bearing on the competence of the determining authority, it being understood that the expiry of that period has the effect of lifting the material and temporal limitations resulting from Article 43.
The third and fourth questions
72      By its third and fourth questions, which it is appropriate to answer together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether an application for international protection, processed initially in the context of a border procedure, within the meaning of Article 43
of Directive 2013/32, may, after the expiry of the four-week period referred to in Article 43(2), be examined as a matter of priority in accordance with Article 31(7) of that directive, where the applicant is kept in detention on the ground referred to in Article 8(3)(b) of Directive 2013/33, both in the event that all the investigative steps, including the personal interview, were completed within that four-week period, and in the event that that personal interview was not conducted within that period. In that context, the referring court also has doubts as to whether such circumstances are compatible with the exceptional nature of the use of detention, in accordance with Article 8 of Directive 2013/33.
73      As a preliminary point, inasmuch as the Belgian Government submits that the fourth question is inadmissible because the referring court does not set out the reasons why it considers that an answer to that question is necessary for the resolution of the disputes in the main proceedings, suffice it to state that, in so far as it uses the expression ‘such an application of national legislation’, that question must be understood as referring to the third question. Thus, it follows implicitly but necessarily from the order for reference that the reasons why that court considers that an answer to the fourth question is necessary are, in essence, the same as those which led it to ask the third question. In those circumstances, and having regard to the presumption of relevance enjoyed by the questions referred for a preliminary ruling, the fourth question must be regarded as admissible.
74      It should be recalled that, in the context of the border procedure, the determining authority is only competent to decide on the admissibility of the application for international protection, pursuant to Article 33 of Directive 2013/32, or on the substance of that application, but only in one of the cases provided for in Article 31(8) of that directive. However, on expiry of the four-week time limit for the border procedure, that authority regains its ordinary jurisdiction.
75      In that context, under Article 31(7) of that directive, a Member State may prioritise an examination of an application for international protection in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees of Chapter II of that directive in certain situations. It is apparent from the use, in that provision, of the words ‘in particular’ that it provides for a non-exhaustive list of the situations in which the Member States may carry out such a priority examination.
76      It should be added that such priority treatment of procedures in which the applicant remains in detention meets the objective of speeding up the process of examining applications for international protection provided for by Directive 2013/32, reflected in recital 18 of that directive and referred to in Article 31(2) thereof, which objective is also highlighted in the second subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Directive 2013/33 as regards the administrative procedures relating to the grounds for detention set out in Article 8(3) of that directive.
77      In that context, the fact that all the investigative steps may or may not have been completed before the expiry of the four-week period laid down in Article 43(2) of Directive 2013/32 does not restrict the possibility for the determining authority to process an application for international protection as a matter of priority. In that regard, it should be observed, as did the Belgian Government, that by providing that the examination of an application for international protection, commenced in a border procedure, is then to continue in accordance with the other procedures laid down in that directive, the EU legislature necessarily allowed investigative steps carried out during or after the border procedure to serve as a valid basis for a decision taken pursuant to those other procedures.
78      As the Advocate General observes in point 71 of his Opinion, requiring the determining authority to conduct a new examination and to disregard the investigative steps carried out during the four-week period referred to in Article 43(2) of Directive 2013/32 would run counter to the need for an efficient and swift procedure for processing applications for international protection.
79      However, it is important to stress that investigative steps that do not meet the basic principles and guarantees of Chapter II of Directive 2013/32 cannot be relied on for a decision on an application for international protection, either under an ordinary procedure or under a border procedure, as is apparent from Article 31(1) and Article 43(1) of that directive, respectively. In addition, the use of such investigative steps is without prejudice to the applicant’s right to make new declarations, inter alia by submitting a new element which it would have been impossible in practice to submit to the competent authority in the course of the border procedure and which it is for that authority to examine in accordance with Article 40(1) of that directive.
80      It is also important to add that the fact that all the investigative steps may or may not have been carried out before the expiry of the four-week period laid down in Article 43(2) of that directive does not, in itself, restrict the possibility for the determining authority to keep the applicant in detention on the basis of Article 8(3)(b) of Directive 2013/33, which permits detention in order to determine the elements on which the application for international protection is based and which could not be obtained without that detention, in particular where there is a risk that the applicant will abscond.
81      However, such continued detention must, in accordance with Article 26(1) of Directive 2013/32, satisfy all the requirements laid down in Article 8 et seq. of Directive 2013/33.
82      In particular, it follows from Article 8(2) of Directive 2013/33 that a person may be detained only when that proves necessary on the basis of an individual assessment of each case and if other less coercive alternative measures cannot be applied effectively. It also follows from Article 9(1) of that directive that an applicant may be detained only for as short a period as possible and only for as long as the grounds set out in Article 8(3) of that directive are applicable. It follows that the national authorities cannot place an applicant for international protection in detention without having previously determined, on a case-by-case basis, whether such detention is proportionate to the aims which it pursues (judgment of 14 May 2020, Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság Dél-alföldi Regionális Igazgatóság, C‑924/19 PPU and C‑925/19 PPU, EU:C:2020:367, paragraph 258 and the case-law cited).
83      Furthermore, in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Directive 2013/33, an applicant for international protection may be detained only for one of the exhaustively listed grounds, and each of those grounds meets a specific need and is self-standing (judgment of 14 May 2020, Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság Dél-alföldi Regionális Igazgatóság, C‑924/19 PPU and C‑925/19 PPU, EU:C:2020:367, paragraph 250 and the case-law cited)
84      From that perspective, if no provision of Directive 2013/33 sets a specific period beyond which Member States are required to put an end to the detention of applicants for international protection, Article 9 of that directive stipulates that the applicant is to enjoy effective procedural safeguards that allow his or her detention to be brought to an end as soon as it ceases to be necessary or proportionate in the light of the objective which it pursues (see, to that effect, judgment of 14 May 2020, Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság Dél-alföldi Regionális Igazgatóság C‑924/19 PPU and C‑925/19 PPU, EU:C:2020:367, paragraphs 263 and 264 and the case-law cited). In particular, Article 9 provides, first, in the first subparagraph of paragraph 3, for a speedy judicial review and, second, in paragraph 5, for a review by a judicial authority of the continued detention at reasonable intervals of time ex officio or at the request of the applicant concerned.
85      In particular, as regards the practice of initiating the examination of an application for international protection within a border procedure, by detaining the applicant on the basis of Article 8(3)(c) of Directive 2013/33 and then, on expiry of the four-week period laid down in Article 43(2) of Directive 2013/32, extending the applicant’s detention on the basis of a different ground, namely the one set out in Article 8(3)(b) of Directive 2013/33, the competent authority is required to verify properly, on a case-by-case basis, whether that extension is necessary to achieve that objective and whether that objective cannot be satisfied as effectively by less coercive measures.
86      It follows that recourse to the practice referred to in the preceding paragraph cannot, without infringing Articles 8 and 9 of the latter directive, be automatic and systematic.
87      In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the third and fourth questions is that Article 31(7) and Article 43 of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as not precluding, first, after the expiry of the four-week period laid down in Article 43(2), the determining authority from continuing, as a matter of priority, the examination of an application for international protection initiated in the border procedure, including where the applicant remains in detention pursuant to Article 8(3)(b) of Directive 2013/33 or, second, that authority from relying on investigative steps carried out as part of that procedure, provided that the basic principles and guarantees set out in Chapter II of Directive 2013/32 are respected at each stage of the examination of that application and provided that, as regards that continued detention, all of the requirements laid down in Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 2013/33 are complied with.
The fifth question
88      By its fifth question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 31(7) and (8), and Articles 43 and 46 of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that the court having jurisdiction, when hearing an action against a decision taken in an examination procedure that initially came under a border procedure, must raise ex officio the fact that the four-week period laid down in Article 43(2) of that directive has been exceeded.
89      It should be noted at the outset that, while it is true that the border procedure provided for in Article 43 of Directive 2013/32 is to be initiated with a view to the adoption of a decision on the admissibility of the application for international protection, pursuant to Article 33 of Directive 2013/32, or on the substance of that application, in one of the cases provided for in Article 31(8) of that directive, within the four-week period referred to in Article 43(2) of that directive, Member States are not, however, required to adopt a decision within that period. Article 43(2) of that directive expressly provides that, in the absence of a decision within that period, the applicant is to be granted entry to the territory in order for his or her application for international protection to be processed in accordance with the other provisions of Directive 2013/32.
90      In the present case, it is common ground that the decisions which the applicants in the main proceedings challenged were adopted under the ordinary procedure.
91      It follows from the answers given to the other questions referred for a preliminary ruling that, contrary to the premiss on which the referring court appears to rely, the lawfulness of those decisions cannot be called into question by the mere fact that that four-week period was exceeded, nor by the mere fact that those applicants were kept in detention beyond that period.
92      Since the answer to the fifth question thus does not appear necessary for the resolution of the disputes in the main proceedings, there is no need to answer that question.
Costs
93      Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby rules:
1.      Article 43 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
must be interpreted as meaning that a procedure for examining an application for international protection made at the border or in a transit zone by an applicant who, for the duration of that procedure, is detained in a place in the territory of the Member State concerned which is not geographically located at the border of that State, but which is treated by the national legislation as a place at that border, falls within the scope of Article 43.
2.      –      Article 43 of Directive 2013/32
must be interpreted as meaning that the examination of an application for international protection, after the four-week period laid down in Article 43(2) of that directive has expired, no longer falls within the scope of Article 43, but falls within the scope of the other provisions of that directive.
–        In a procedure for examining an application for international protection, Directive 2013/32 does not preclude the same place of detention from being treated initially as a ‘place at the border’ and subsequently, after the applicant has been authorised to enter the territory on account of the expiry of the four-week period laid down in Article 43(2) of that directive, from being regarded as a ‘place in the territory’. The Member State concerned must, however, ensure that that applicant is informed, at the latest when the decision keeping him or her in detention on the basis of Article 8 of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection
is adopted, of the change in his or her legal situation, namely that as a result of the expiry of that period he or she is authorised to enter the territory and, where appropriate, that he or she is to be provided with the document referred to in Article 6(1) of Directive 2013/33 or equivalent evidence, in accordance with Article 6(2) thereof.
–        Article 43 of Directive 2013/32
must be interpreted as meaning that the continued detention of an applicant for international protection and the change in the legal classification of the place of that detention, in accordance with national legislation, after the expiry of the four-week period laid down in Article 43(2) of that directive, in themselves, have no bearing on the competence of the determining authority, it being understood that the expiry of that period has the effect of lifting the material and temporal limitations resulting from Article 43.
3.      Article 31(7) and Article 43 of Directive 2013/32
must be interpreted as not precluding, first, after the expiry of the four-week period laid down in Article 43(2), the determining authority from continuing, as a matter of priority, the examination of an application for international protection initiated in the border procedure, including where the applicant remains in detention pursuant to Article 8(3)(b) of Directive 2013/33 or, second, that authority from relying on investigative steps carried out as part of that procedure, provided that the basic principles and guarantees set out in Chapter II of Directive 2013/32 are respected at each stage of the examination of that application and provided that, as regards that continued detention, all of the requirements laid down in Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 2013/33 are complied with.
[Signatures]
*      Language of the case: French.
i      The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.