Case C-283/24, Barouk: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Dikastirio Diethnous Prostasias (Cyprus) lodged on 23 April 2024 – B. F. v Kypriaki Dimokratia
Date: 2024-04-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: asylum seeker, foreign national, international protection, judicial power, medical examination, national competent authority, national law, right to an effective remedy








C_202404711EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/4711


5.8.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Dikastirio Diethnous Prostasias (Cyprus) lodged on 23 April 2024 – B. F. v Kypriaki Dimokratia


(Case C-283/24, Barouk)
                (1)

(C/2024/4711)
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Dioikitiko Dikastirio Diethnous Prostasias

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: B. F.

Defendant: Kypriaki Dimokratia

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 46(1) and (3) of Directive 2013/32/EU, (2) read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, and in conjunction with the obligation to carry out an individual assessment referred to in Article 4(3)(c), the duty of cooperation laid down in Article 4(1) of Directive 2011/95/EU (3) and the duty of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of an express provision of national law empowering the national court under Article 46 to refer the applicant for medical examinations, that court may derive its power to issue an order referring the applicant for medical examinations directly from that article where that is considered necessary for a full and ex nunc examination of an application for international protection?










2.


Is Article 46(1) and (3) of Directive 2013/32/EU, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, and in conjunction with the obligation to carry out an individual assessment referred to in Article 4(3)(c), the duty of cooperation laid down in Article 4(1) of Directive 2011/95/EU and the duty of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of an express provision of national law empowering the national court under Article 46 to refer the applicant for medical examinations, and, by extension, in the absence of an express statutory provision on a mechanism for referral for medical examinations available to the national court directly under that article, the court has the power to apply to the determining authority (which is always one of the parties to the proceedings before it) in order that it may, by analogy, implement the mechanism provided for in Article 18 of Directive 2013/32/EU by providing the national court with a medical examination of the applicant?










3.


Is Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32/EU, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, to be interpreted as meaning that the means of conducting the full and ex nunc examination of an application for international protection are a matter for the procedural autonomy of the Member States? If so, is Article 46(1) and (3) of Directive 2013/32/EU, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, and in conjunction with the duty of cooperation laid down in Article 4(1) of Directive 2011/95/EU and the duty of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of an express provision of national law empowering the national court to refer the applicant for medical examinations and, by extension, in the absence of an express statutory provision on a mechanism for referral for medical examinations available to the national court, the court has the power to apply to the determining authority (which is always one of the parties to the proceedings before it) in order that it may, by analogy, implement the mechanism laid down in Article 18 of Directive 2013/32/EU by providing the national court with a medical examination of the applicant where the national court considers that the national measures do not comply with the principle of effectiveness?










4.


Is Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32/EU, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, to be interpreted as meaning that, in cases where it is established that there is an absence of appropriate mechanisms for carrying out the individual, full and ex nunc examination provided for in Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32/EU, the guarantees set out in those articles are satisfied where the national court has the power to annul the decision rejecting an application for international protection?






(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  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).

(3)  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).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4711/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)