Key facts of the case:
Asylum — Examination of an application for international protection — Criteria for determining the responsible Member State — Interpretation of Article 27(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Right of appeal or review
Results (sanctions) and key consequences of the case:
- In the light of all the foregoing considerations, I am of the opinion that the Court should answer the questions raised by the Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in ’s‑Hertogenbosch (Netherlands), as follows:
– Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person should be interpreted as meaning that an applicant in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings is able to challenge, on appeal or by review, a transfer decision under Article 27(1) and to request the national court to verify whether the criteria in Chapter III have been correctly applied in his case. The effectiveness of judicial review guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union requires an assessment of the lawfulness of the grounds which were the basis of the transfer decision and whether it was taken on a sufficiently solid factual basis. The manner in which the examination is conducted as to whether the Chapter III criteria have been applied objectively and fairly in any particular case is governed by national procedural rules. Subject to the principle of effectiveness, those rules also govern the intensity and outcome of the appeal or review process.
– There is no need to answer Questions 2 and 3.