CJEU Case 198/25 / Judgment

S v Minister van Asiel en Migratie (Quotal)
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Court (Second Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
04/06/2026
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2026:447

Χάρτης των Θεμελιωδών Δικαιωμάτων της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

  • CJEU Case 198/25 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Asylum policy – Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection – Directive 2013/32/EU – Article 46 – Right to an effective remedy – Full and ex nunc examination – Extent of the powers of the first-instance court or tribunal – Examination of the facts by the first-instance court or tribunal – Examination of the international protection needs by the first-instance court or tribunal

    Outcome of the case:

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

    Article 46(3) 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, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

    must be interpreted as meaning that first, it confers on a first-instance court or tribunal before which an action has been brought against a decision rejecting an application for international protection the power to give a binding ruling on the credibility of the account provided in support of that application, on the plausibility of the applicant’s fear of persecution or the real risk of that applicant suffering serious harm upon return to his or her country of origin, as well as on the merits of that application, taking into consideration evidence submitted in the course of the appeal procedure and, second, the Member States may not place constraints on that power.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    24. By its first, second, third and fourth questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, (i) whether Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, is to be interpreted as conferring on a first-instance court or tribunal before which an action has been brought against a decision rejecting an application for international protection the power to give a binding ruling on the credibility of the account provided in support of that application, on the plausibility of the applicant’s fear of persecution or the real risk of that applicant suffering serious harm upon return to his or her country of origin, as well as on the merits of that application, taking into consideration evidence submitted in the course of the appeal procedure and (ii) whether, where applicable, the Member States may place constraints on that power so that only the determining authority as defined in Article 2(f) of that directive (‘the determining authority’) has the power to assess applications for international protection and to decide on the merits of those applications.

    ...

    41. As regards the question whether the applicant for international protection and the determining authority must have the possibility of expressing their views regarding that new evidence, the Court has indicated that the court or tribunal is required, as follows from Article 47 of the Charter, to offer the applicant the opportunity to express his or her views when that evidence could affect him or her negatively (judgment of 25 July 2018, Alheto, C‑585/16, EU:C:2018:584, paragraph 114).

    ...

    55. However, if such a consistent interpretation were to prove impossible, the Court has emphasised the imperative of the court with jurisdiction to set aside, with a view to applying EU law, national legislative provisions that might prevent EU rules which have direct effect, such as Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, from having full force and effect (judgment of 3 April 2025, Barouk, C‑283/24, EU:C:2025:236, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited).

    ...

    58. In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the questions referred is that Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that, first, it confers on a first-instance court or tribunal before which an action has been brought against a decision rejecting an application for international protection the power to give a binding ruling on the credibility of the account provided in support of that application, on the plausibility of the applicant’s fear of persecution or the real risk of that applicant suffering serious harm upon return to his or her country of origin, as well as on the merits of that application, taking into consideration evidence submitted in the course of the appeal procedure, and, second, the Member States may not place constraints on that power.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)