17.1.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 24/21
3.
Is a national legal practice whereby a decision-maker, when assessing an application for international protection, weighs up the best interests of the child without first concretely determining (in each procedure) the best interests of the child compatible with EU law and, in particular, with Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), read in conjunction with Article 51(1) of the Charter?
Is the answer to this question different if the Member State has to assess a request for the grant of residence on ordinary grounds and the best interests of the child must be taken into account in deciding on that request? 4.
Having regard to Article 24(2) of the Charter, in which manner and at what stage of the assessment of an application for international protection must the best interests of the child, and, more specifically, the harm suffered by a minor as a result of his or her long residence in a Member State, be taken into account and weighed up?
Is it relevant in that regard whether that actual residence was lawful?
Is it relevant, when weighing up the best interests of the child in the above assessment, whether the Member State took a decision on the application for international protection within the time limits laid down in EU law, whether a previously imposed obligation to return was not complied with and whether the Member State did not effect removal after a return decision had been issued, as a result of which the minor’s actual residence in the Member State was able to continue? 5.
Is a national legal practice whereby a distinction is made between initial and subsequent applications for international protection, in the sense that ordinary grounds are disregarded in the case of subsequent applications for international protection, compatible with EU law, having regard to Article 7 of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 24(2) thereof?
(1)
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 (recast) (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal correctionnel de Villefranche-sur-Saône (France) lodged on 29 October 2021 — Procureur de la République v K.B., F.S. (Case C-660/21) (2022/C 24/27) Language of the case: French Referring court Tribunal correctionnel de Villefranche-sur-Saône
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Procureur de la République Defendants: K.B., F.S.
Question referred Must Articles 3 (Right to information about rights) and 4 (Letter of Rights on arrest) of the Directive of the European Parliament of 22 May 2012 (1) and Article 7 (Right to remain silent) of the Directive of the European Parliament of 9 March 2016 (2) in conjunction with Article 48 (Presumption of innocence and right of defence) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding the prohibition on the national court raising of its own motion a violation of the rights of the defence as guaranteed by those directives, more specifically in so far as it is prohibited from raising of its own motion, with a view to the annulment of the procedure, a failure to give notification of the right to remain silent at the time of the arrest or a late notification of the right to remain silent?
(1) (2)
Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1).
Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1).