C 73/10
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.2.2022
Question referred Must Article 5(1) of Directive 2015/1535/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 ‘laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services’ be interpreted as meaning that a prohibition on the use of pesticides containing glyphosate on land in private use by users who do not have a phytosanitary licence is deemed to concern a technical regulation which must be communicated to the European Commission in accordance with the provisions of that article?
(1)
OJ 2015 L 241, p. 1.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 5 November 2021 — Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl (Case C-663/21) (2022/C 73/13) Language of the case: German Referring court Verwaltungsgerichtshof Parties to the main proceedings Appellant: Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl Interested party: AA Questions referred 1.
In the assessment as to whether the asylum status previously granted to a refugee by the competent authority can be revoked on the ground set out in Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU, (1) must the competent authority carry out a weighing up of interests in such a way that revocation requires that the public interests in forced return must outweigh the refugee’s interests in the continuation of the protection afforded by the State of refuge, whereby the reprehensibility of a crime and the potential danger to society must be weighed against the foreign national’s interests in protection — including with regard to the extent and nature of the measures with which he or she is threatened? 2.
Do the provisions of Directive 2008/115/EC, (2) in particular Articles 5, 6, 8 and 9 thereof, preclude a situation under national law in which a return decision is to be adopted in respect of a third-country national whose previous right of residence as a refugee is withdrawn due to the revocation of asylum status, even if it is already declared at the time of adoption of the return decision that his or her removal is not permissible for an indefinite period of time on account of the principle of non-refoulement, and this is also declared capable of having legal force?
(1) (2)
Directive 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).
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 11 November 2021 — UL, SA Royal Antwerp Football Club v Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL (Case C-680/21) (2022/C 73/14) Language of the case: French Referring court Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles