Joined Cases C-323/21 to C-325/21: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 January 2023 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v B (C-323/21), F (C-324/21) and K v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (C-325/21) (References for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection — Lodging of multiple applications for international protection in three Member States — Article 29 — Time limit for transfer — Expiry — Transfer of responsibility for examining the application — Article 27 — Remedy — Scope of judicial review — Possibility for the applicant to rely on the transfer of responsibility for examining the application)
Date: 2023-01-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU migration policy, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, appeal, foreign national, international protection, right of asylum








C_2023071EN.01000802.xml










27.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/8






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 January 2023 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v B (C-323/21), F (C-324/21) and K v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (C-325/21)
(Joined Cases C-323/21 to C-325/21) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Lodging of multiple applications for international protection in three Member States - Article 29 - Time limit for transfer - Expiry - Transfer of responsibility for examining the application - Article 27 - Remedy - Scope of judicial review - Possibility for the applicant to rely on the transfer of responsibility for examining the application)
(2023/C 71/09)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (C-323/21), (C-324/21), K (C-325/21)

Defendants: B (C-323/21), F (C-324/21), Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (C-325/21)

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Cases C-323/21, C-324/21 and C-325/21 are joined for the purposes of the judgment.










2.


Articles 23 and 29 of 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
must be interpreted as meaning that, where a time limit for the transfer of a third-country national between a requested Member State and a first requesting Member State has started to run, responsibility for examining the application for international protection lodged by that person is transferred to that requesting Member State by reason of the expiry of that time limit, even though that person, in the meantime, lodged a new application for international protection in a third Member State, which led to the acceptance by the requested Member State of a take back request made by that third Member State, provided that that responsibility has not been transferred to that third Member State by reason of the expiry of one of the time limits provided for in Article 23.
Following such a transfer of responsibility, the Member State in which that person is present cannot transfer him or her to a Member State other than the newly responsible Member State, but it may, however, within the time limits laid down in Article 23(2) of that regulation, submit a take back request to the latter Member State.










3.


Article 27(1) of Regulation No 604/2013, read in the light of recital 19 of that regulation, and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national who has lodged an application for international protection successively in three Member States must be able, in the third of those Member States, to have available an effective and rapid remedy which enables him or her to rely on the fact that responsibility for examining his or her application was transferred, by reason of the expiry of the time limit for transfer provided for in Article 29(1) and (2) of that regulation, to the second of those Member States.






(1)  OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.