Case C-718/24, Aleb: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 22 October 2024 – NP v Predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite
Date: 2024-10-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: action brought before an administrative court, foreign national, international protection, judicial review, public safety, right of asylum, third country, war








C_202500381EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/381


27.1.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 22 October 2024 – NP v Predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite


(Case C-718/24, Aleb)
                (1)

(C/2025/381)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: NP

Defendant: Predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite

Questions referred







1.


Adopting a broad interpretation of recital 46 and of point (c) of Article 33(2), read in conjunction with Article 38, of Directive 2013/32/EU, (2) can it be assumed that the rules set out in those provisions, which permit an application for international protection to be regarded as inadmissible and which concern the concept of a safe third country within the meaning of Article 38 of [Directive 2013/32], must be applied in a procedure under Chapter III of that Directive in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees of Chapter II of that Directive, that is to say, when an application for international protection is examined in substance?










2.


Are recital 46 and point (c) of Article [33](2), read in conjunction with Article 38, of Directive 2013/31, to be interpreted as permitting national legislation, such as that in Article 75(2) of the Zakon za ubezhishteto i bezhantsite (Law on asylum and refugees), and administrative and judicial practice, under which an application for international protection examined in substance may be rejected without the application being declared as manifestly unfounded or inadmissible, solely on the grounds that the applicant has the possibility of benefiting from the protection of a safe third country, without the methodology envisaged by point (b) of Article 38(2) of Directive 2013/32 having been developed and applied in national law, and if the administrative authority recognises that there is armed conflict in the applicant’s country of origin and the qualification criteria laid down in point (c) of Article 15 of Directive 2011/95 (3) are met?










3.


Is point (b) of Article 38(2), read in conjunction with recital 46, of Directive 2013/32, to be interpreted as meaning that an administrative authority examining an application for international protection in substance may apply the safe third country concept to a particular country and to a particular applicant solely on the basis of information from publicly available sources and a decision of an executive body (Council of Ministers) in which a particular third country is deemed to be a safe third country, without a methodology within the meaning of that provision being provided for in national law, by application of which the administrative authority satisfies itself that the safe third country concept may be applied to a particular country and a particular applicant?










4.


Is point (a) of Article 38(2) of Directive 2013/32 to be interpreted as meaning that it is mandatory for Member States to lay down in their national law criteria which, if met, it can be assumed that there is a connection between the applicant and the third country concerned on the basis of which it would be reasonable for that person to go to that country?










5.


Is point (c) of Article 38(2) of Directive 2013/32, which sets out the possibility for an applicant to challenge before the courts the existence of a connection between himself or herself and a third country recognised as being safe, as referred to in point (a), to be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of national legislation providing for judicial review of the lawfulness of the existence of a connection between the applicant and the third country concerned, the court hearing an action against the administrative decision refusing the applicant international protection on the grounds that a third country is recognised as being safe for the applicant, must necessarily declare that it has jurisdiction and rule on the lawfulness of the existence of such a connection, as found by the administrative authority?






(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/2025/381/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)