CJEU Case C-431/24 / Judgment

W v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Multan)
Deciding body type
European Court of Human Rights
Deciding body
Court (Fifth Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
29/01/2026
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2026:53

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

Title II: Freedoms

Article 18 - Right to asylum

Title II: Freedoms

Article 19 - Protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition

Title I: Dignity

Article 4 - Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

Title VI: Justice

Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial

Title VII: General provisions

Article 52 - Scope and interpretation

VIEW FULL CASE
  • CJEU Case C-431/24 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    Reference for a preliminary ruling – Asylum policy – Directive 2013/32/EU – Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection – Article 23(1) – Access to the information in the file of an applicant for international protection – Article 46 – Right to an effective remedy – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 4, Article 18 and Article 19(2) – Principle of non-refoulement – Second paragraph of Article 47 – Right to a fair trial – Investigation in the applicant’s country of origin – Rejection of an application for international protection and adoption of a return decision – Access of the court of first instance and the applicant to information relating to the manner in which the investigation was conducted in the applicant’s country of origin – Scope of the rights of the defence and of the right to an effective remedy – Connection with the principle of non-refoulement

    Outcome of the case:

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

    Article 23(1) 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 conjunction with Article 46 of that directive and in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

    must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of an action before a national court called upon to rule on the lawfulness of a decision rejecting an application for international protection and that of a return decision taken against the third-country national who lodged that application, information relating to the manner in which an investigation was conducted by the authorities of the host Member State in the country of origin of that third-country national for the purpose of determining the merits of his or her application is covered by the concept of ‘information in the applicant’s file upon the basis of which a decision is or will be made’, within the meaning of that provision, where it is likely to be relevant to the assessment, by that court, of whether the principle of non-refoulement has been complied with. It follows that the applicant for international protection and the court having jurisdiction must be able to access that information by the means provided for in points (a) and (b) of the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of that directive.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    29. By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 23(1) of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 46 of that directive and in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of an action before a national court called upon to rule on the lawfulness of a decision rejecting an application for international protection and that of a return decision taken against the third-country national who lodged that application, information relating to the manner in which an investigation was conducted by the authorities of the host Member State in the country of origin of that third-country national for the purpose of determining the merits of that application is covered by the concept of ‘information in the applicant’s file upon the basis of which a decision is or will be made’, within the meaning of that provision, with the result that the applicant for international protection and the court having jurisdiction must be able to access that information by the means provided for in points (a) and (b) of the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of that directive.

    ...

    31. In that regard, it must be borne in mind that the principle of non-refoulement is guaranteed, as a fundamental right, in Article 18 of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 33 of the Geneva Convention, and in Article 19(2) of the Charter (judgment of 17 October 2024, Ararat, C‑156/23, EU:C:2024:892, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).

    32.  The latter provision, read in conjunction with Article 4 of the Charter, prohibits in absolute terms, irrespective of the conduct of the person concerned, removal, expulsion or extradition to a State where there is a serious risk of that person being subjected to the death penalty, torture or inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment (judgments of 6 July 2023, Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl (Refugee who has committed a serious crime), C‑663/21, EU:C:2023:540, paragraph 36, and of 17 October 2024, Ararat, C‑156/23, EU:C:2024:892, paragraph 36).

    ...

    40. The interpretation adopted in paragraphs 38 and 39 above is supported by Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32 and Article 47 of the Charter.

    ...

    44. Secondly, the right to a fair trial, as guaranteed in the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, includes respect for the rights of the defence, which, according to that paragraph, entails the possibility of being advised, defended and represented. Those rights must be respected in any proceedings against a person which may result in an act adversely affecting him or her. The effective exercise of those rights has as a necessary corollary the right of access to the file (judgment of 1 December 2022, Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Access to the file in asylum cases), C‑564/21, EU:C:2022:951, paragraph 36 and the case-law cited).

    45. The Court has held that the person against whom an act adversely affecting him or her has been adopted has the right to examine all the documents in the investigation file that are likely to be relevant to his or her defence and that it cannot be for the authority which took that act alone to determine which documents are useful for that purpose (see, to that effect, judgment of 1 December 2022, Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Access to the file in asylum cases), C‑564/21, EU:C:2022:951, paragraphs 38 and 39 and the case-law cited). The exercise of that right may, however, be limited subject to the conditions laid down in Article 52(1) of the Charter.

    ...

    48. Accordingly, as regards access to the file by the person concerned or his or her adviser, it is settled case-law that fundamental rights, such as respect for the rights of the defence under Article 47 of the Charter, including the right to disclosure of documents relevant to the defence, are not absolute prerogatives, but may be subject to restrictions, provided that such restrictions effectively meet the objectives of general interest pursued by the measure in question and do not involve, in the light of the aim pursued, disproportionate and intolerable intervention which would undermine the very substance of the rights thus guaranteed (judgment of 1 December 2022, Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Access to the file in asylum cases), C‑564/21, EU:C:2022:951, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).

    ...

    54. Consequently, as Directive 2013/32 does not prescribe how the Member States are to guarantee respect for the rights of defence of the person concerned where his or her right of access to the file is restricted pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of that directive, it is for the Member States to lay down the practical arrangements of the procedures necessary for that purpose, provided, however, that they guarantee, in particular, respect for the right to an effective remedy as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 September 2022, Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság and Others, C‑159/21, EU:C:2022:708, paragraphs 43 and 44).

    ...

    56. In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question is that Article 23(1) of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 46 of that directive and in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of an action before a national court called upon to rule on the lawfulness of a decision rejecting an application for international protection and that of a return decision taken against the third-country national who lodged that application, information relating to the manner in which an investigation was conducted by the authorities of the host Member State in the country of origin of that third-country national for the purpose of determining the merits of his or her application is covered by the concept of ‘information in the applicant’s file upon the basis of which a decision is or will be made’, within the meaning of that provision, where it is likely to be relevant to the assessment, by that court, of whether the principle of non-refoulement has been complied with. It follows that the applicant for international protection and the court having jurisdiction must be able to access that information by the means provided for in points (a) and (b) of the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of that directive.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)