CELEX: 62016CA0348
Language: en
Date: 2017-07-26 00:00:00
Title: Case C-348/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano- Italy) — Moussa Sacko v Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della protezione internazionale di Milano (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Asylum policy — Directive 2013/32/EU — Articles 12, 14, 31 and 46 — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to effective judicial protection — Appeal against a decision refusing an application for international protection — Whether it is possible for the court to adjudicate without hearing the applicant)

18.9.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 309/12
            
         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano- Italy) — Moussa Sacko v Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della protezione internazionale di Milano
   (Case C-348/16) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Asylum policy - Directive 2013/32/EU - Articles 12, 14, 31 and 46 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to effective judicial protection - Appeal against a decision refusing an application for international protection - Whether it is possible for the court to adjudicate without hearing the applicant))
   (2017/C 309/16)
   Language of the case: Italian
   
      Referring court
   
   Tribunale di Milano
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Moussa Sacko
   
      Defendant: Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della protezione internazionale di Milano
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   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, in particular Articles 12, 14, 31 and 46 thereof, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding the national court or tribunal hearing an appeal against a decision rejecting a manifestly unfounded application for international protection from dismissing the appeal without hearing the applicant where the factual circumstances leave no doubt as to whether that decision was well founded, on condition that, first, during the proceedings at first instance, the applicant was given the opportunity of a personal interview on his or her application for international protection, in accordance with Article 14 of the directive, and the report or transcript of the interview, if an interview was conducted, was placed on the case-file, in accordance with Article 17(2) of the directive, and, second, the court hearing the appeal may order that a hearing be conducted if it considers it necessary for the purpose of ensuring that there is a full and ex nunc examination of both facts and points of law, as required under Article 46(3) of the directive.
   
      (1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.