CJEU Case C-718/24 / Judgment

NP v Predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite (Aleb)
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Court (Second Chamber)
Typ
Decision
Decision date
05/02/2026
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2026:68
  • CJEU Case C-718/24 / Judgment

    key facts of the case:

    Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Asylum policy – Directive 2013/32/EU – Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection – Article 33 – Grounds of inadmissibility – Article 38 – Concept of ‘safe third country’ – Conditions for implementation – Connection between the applicant and the third country concerned – Criteria – Assessment methods – Article 46 – Right to an effective remedy – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

    Outcome of the case:

    On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby rules:

    1. Article 33(2)(c) and Article 38 of 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

      must be interpreted as meaning that:

      – the ground for inadmissibility set out in Article 33(2)(c) of that directive does not necessarily have to be applied when examining the merits of an application for international protection;

      – an application under substantive examination may be rejected as inadmissible on the grounds that a third country is considered to be a safe third country for the applicant, even when the competent authority has found that the applicant meets the conditions for granting international protection laid down in 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. By contrast, such an application may be rejected as unfounded, or even manifestly unfounded, only under the conditions set out in Article 32 of Directive 2013/32 and may not, in any event, be rejected as unfounded on the grounds of inadmissibility provided for in Article 33(2)(c) of that directive.

    2. Article 38(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32

      must be interpreted as meaning that Member States must provide in their national law criteria for considering that there is a connection between the applicant for international protection and the third country concerned, it being specified that that connection must be sufficient to make the applicant’s movement to that country reasonable.

    3. Article 38(2)(b) and (c) of Directive 2013/32

      must be interpreted as meaning that the determining authority may apply the concept of ‘safe third country’ on the basis of information from publicly available sources and a decision of the executive which draws up a list of safe third countries, provided that national law also defines the methodology applicable for assessing, on a case-by-case basis, according to the particular circumstances of the applicant for international protection, whether the third country concerned satisfies the conditions for being regarded as safe for that applicant and the possibility for that applicant to challenge the existence of a connection, within the meaning of Article 38(2)(a) of that directive.

    4. Article 38(2)(c) and Article 46(1) and (3) of Directive 2013/32, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

      must be interpreted as meaning that the national court hearing an appeal against a decision rejecting an application for international protection on the basis of the ground of inadmissibility relating to a safe third country, referred to in Article 33(2)(c) of that directive, must verify whether there is a connection, within the meaning of Article 38(2)(a) of that directive, between the applicant and the third country concerned, even if its national law does not grant it such a power.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    70. Accordingly, in order to provide a useful answer to the referring court, account should also be taken of the provisions of Article 46(1) and (3) of that directive, and of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), relating to the right to effective judicial protection.

    71. Under those circumstances, the fifth question must be understood as meaning that, by that question, the referring court is asking, in essence, whether Article 38(2)(c) and Article 46(1) and (3) of Directive 2013/32, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that the national court hearing an appeal against a decision rejecting an application for international protection on the basis of the ground of inadmissibility relating to a safe third country, referred to in Article 33(2)(c) of that directive, must verify whether there is a connection, within the meaning of Article 38(2)(a) of that directive, between the applicant and the third country concerned, even if its national law does not grant it such a power.

    ...

    73.  Furthermore, it is apparent from the Court’s case-law that the characteristics of the remedy provided for in Article 46 of Directive 2013/32 must be determined in a manner that is consistent with Article 47 of the Charter, which constitutes a reaffirmation of the principle of effective judicial protection. Article 47 of the Charter is sufficient in itself and does not need to be made more specific by provisions of EU or national law in order to confer on individuals a right which they may rely on as such. The same must hold true for Article 46(3) of that directive, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter (judgments of 4 October 2024, Ministerstvo vnitra České republiky, Odbor azylové a migrační politiky, C‑406/22, EU:C:2024:841, paragraph 86, and of 1 August 2025, Alace and Canpelli, C‑758/24 and C‑759/24, EU:C:2025:591, paragraph 77).

    ...

    79.  In the light of the foregoing reasons, the answer to the fifth question is that Article 38(2)(c) and Article 46(1) and (3) of Directive 2013/32, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that the national court hearing an appeal against a decision rejecting an application for international protection on the basis of the ground of inadmissibility relating to a safe third country, referred to in Article 33(2)(c) of that directive, must verify whether there is a connection, within the meaning of Article 38(2)(a) of that directive, between the applicant and the third country concerned, even if its national law does not grant it such a power.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)