Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Roma (Italy) lodged on 22 April 2021 — DG v Ministero dell’Interno — Dipartimento per le Libertà Civili e l’Immigrazione — Direzione Centrale dei Servizi Civili per L’Immigrazione e l’Asilo — Unità Dublino

(Case C-254/21)

(2021/C 278/40)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DG

Defendant: Ministero dell’Interno — Dipartimento per le Libertà Civili e l’Immigrazione — Direzione Centrale dei Servizi Civili per L’Immigrazione e l’Asilo — Unità Dublino

Questions referred

1. Does the right to an effective remedy under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union require that Articles 4 and 19 of that charter, in the circumstances referred to in the main proceedings, also provide protection against the risk of indirect refoulement following a transfer to a Member State of the European Union which has no systemic flaws within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation (1) (in the absence of other Member States responsible on the basis of the criteria set out in Chapters III and IV) and which has already examined and rejected the first application for international protection?

2. Should the court of the Member State where the second application for international protection was lodged, hearing an appeal pursuant to Article 27 of the Dublin Regulation — and thus having jurisdiction to assess the transfer within the European Union but not to adjudicate on the application for protection — conclude that there is a risk of indirect refoulement to a third country, where the concept of ‘internal protection’ within the meaning of Article 8 of Directive 2011/95/EU (2) has been assessed differently by the Member State where the first application for international protection was lodged?

3. Is the assessment of the [risk of] indirect refoulement, following the different interpretation by two Member States of the need for ‘internal protection’, compatible with the second part of Article 3(1) of the Dublin Regulation and with the general principle that third-country nationals may not decide in which Member State of the European Union the application for international protection is to be lodged?

4. In the event that the previous questions are answered in the affirmative: (a) Does the assessment of the existence of the [risk of] indirect refoulement, made by the court of the Member State in which the applicant lodged the second application for international protection following the rejection of the first application, require the application of the clause provided for in Article 17(1), defined by the Regulation as a ‘discretionary clause’? (b) Which criteria must the court seised [pursuant to] Article 27 of the Regulation apply in order to assess the risk of indirect refoulement, other than those identified in Chapters III and IV, given that that risk has already been ruled out by the country that examined the first application for international protection?

(1) Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 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 (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).

(2) 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).