CJEU Joined Cases C-758/24 and C-759/24 / Judgment

LC and CP v Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della Protezione Internazionale di Roma – sezione procedure alla frontiera II
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Type
Decision
Decision date
01/08/2025
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2025:591
  • CJEU Joined Cases C-758/24 and C-759/24 / 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 – Articles 36 and 37 – Concept of ‘safe country of origin’ – Designation by means of a legislative act – Annex I – Criteria – Article 46 – Right to an effective remedy – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Examination, by a court, of a Member State’s designation of a third country as a safe country of origin – Publicisation of the sources of information on which that decision is based.

    Outcome of the Case:

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

    1. Articles 36 and 37 and 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 not precluding a Member State from designating third countries as safe countries of origin by means of a legislative act, provided that that designation can be subject to judicial review as regards compliance with the material conditions for such a designation, set out in Annex I to that directive, by any national court or tribunal hearing an action brought against a decision taken on an application for international protection, which had been examined under the special scheme applicable to applications lodged by applicants who are from third countries designated as safe countries of origin.

    2. Articles 36 and 37 and Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as meaning that:
    • a Member State, which designates a third country as a safe country of origin, must ensure that there is, in respect of the sources of information, within the meaning of Article 37(3) of that directive, on which that designation is based, sufficient and adequate access that must, on the one hand, enable the applicant for international protection concerned, who is from that third country, to defend his or rights under the best possible conditions and to decide with full knowledge of the facts whether it is useful to bring his or her case before the court or tribunal having jurisdiction and, on the other hand, enable that court or tribunal to review a decision taken on the application for international protection;
    • the national court or tribunal hearing an action brought against a decision taken on an application for international protection, which had been examined under the special examination scheme applicable to applications lodged by applicants who are from third countries designated as safe countries of origin, may, when it verifies, even indirectly, whether that designation complies with the material conditions for such a designation, set out in Annex I to that directive, take account of the information which it has itself gathered, provided, first, that it satisfies itself that that information is reliable and, second, that it guarantees the parties to the dispute that the adversarial principle is observed.

       

    3. Article 37 of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Annex I to that directive,

    must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from designating as a safe country of origin a third country which does not satisfy, for certain categories of persons, the material conditions for such a designation, set out in Annex I to that directive.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    54. By its first questions, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Articles 36 and 37 and Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from designating third countries as safe countries of origin by means of a legislative act.

    ...

    64. In addition, although, in the absence of EU rules on the matter, it is for the national legal order, in accordance with the principle of procedural autonomy of Member States and subject to the observance of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing remedies for ensuring that individual rights derived from the EU legal order are safeguarded, Member States nevertheless have the responsibility to ensure observance in every case of the right to effective judicial protection of those rights as guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter, the scope of that right being clarified, in the present case, by Article 46 of Directive 2013/32 (see, to that effect, judgment of 3 July 2025, Al Nasiria, C‑610/23, EU:C:2025:514, paragraph 51 and the case-law cited).

    ...

    66. In that regard, the Court has held that, in accordance with Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, where an action is brought before a national court or tribunal against a decision taken on an application for international protection – examined in the context of the special scheme applicable to applications lodged by applicants from third countries designated, in accordance with Article 37 of that directive, as safe countries of origin – that court or tribunal must, as part of the full and ex nunc examination required by Article 46(3) of that directive, raise, on the basis of the information in the file and the information brought to its attention during the proceedings before it, a failure to have regard to the material conditions for such designation, set out in Annex I to that directive (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 October 2024, Ministerstvo vnitra České republiky, Odbor azylové a migrační politiky, C‑406/22, EU:C:2024:841, paragraph 98).

    ...

    68. In that regard, the Court has held that, in accordance with Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, where an action is brought before a national court or tribunal against a decision taken on an application for international protection – examined in the context of the special scheme applicable to applications lodged by applicants from third countries designated, in accordance with Article 37 of that directive, as safe countries of origin – that court or tribunal must, as part of the full and ex nunc examination required by Article 46(3) of that directive, raise, on the basis of the information in the file and the information brought to its attention during the proceedings before it, a failure to have regard to the material conditions for such designation, set out in Annex I to that directive (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 October 2024, Ministerstvo vnitra České republiky, Odbor azylové a migrační politiky, C‑406/22, EU:C:2024:841, paragraph 98).

    69. By its second and third questions, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Articles 36 and 37 and Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that, first, a Member State which designates a third country as a safe country of origin must make accessible the sources of information, within the meaning of Article 37(3) of that directive, on which that designation is based and, second, the national court or tribunal hearing an action brought against a decision taken on an application for international protection, which had been examined in the context of the special examination scheme applicable to applications lodged by applicants from third countries designated as safe countries of origin, may, when it verifies whether that designation complies with the material conditions for such a designation set out in Annex I to that directive, take account of the information which it has itself gathered.

    ...

    77. 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 (see judgment of 4 October 2024, Ministerstvo vnitra České republiky, Odbor azylové a migrační politiky, C‑406/22, EU:C:2024:841, paragraph 86 and the case-law cited).

    78. From that point of view, first, it should be borne in mind that, according to the Court’s settled case-law, if the judicial review guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter, in the light of which Article 46 of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted, is to be effective, on the one hand, the person concerned must be able to ascertain the reasons upon which the decision taken in relation to him or her is based, either by reading the decision itself or by requesting and obtaining notification of those reasons, so as to make it possible for him or her to defend his or her rights in the best possible conditions and to decide, with full knowledge of the relevant facts, whether there is any point in his or her applying to the court or tribunal with jurisdiction. On the other hand, the latter must have the power to require the authority concerned to provide those reasons, in order to be fully in a position in which it may carry out the review of the lawfulness of the national decision in question (judgments of 4 June 2013, ZZ, C‑300/11, EU:C:2013:363, paragraph 53, and of 29 July 2024, protectus, C‑185/23, EU:C:2024:657, paragraph 79 and the case-law cited).

    ...

    85. As follows from the Court’s case-law cited in paragraph 66 above, in accordance with Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, where an action is brought before a national court or tribunal against a decision taken on an application for international protection examined in the context of the special examination scheme mentioned in paragraph 48 above, that court or tribunal must, as part of the full and ex nunc examination required by Article 46(3) of that directive, raise, on the basis of the information in the file and the information brought to its attention during the proceedings before it, a possible failure to have regard to the material conditions for such a designation, set out in Annex I to that directive.

    ...

    88. In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the second and third questions is that Articles 36 and 37 and Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that:

    - a Member State, which designates a third country as a safe country of origin, must ensure that there is, in respect of the sources of information, within the meaning of Article 37(3) of that directive, on which that designation is based, sufficient and adequate access that must, on the one hand, enable the applicant for international protection concerned, who is from that third country, to defend his or rights under the best possible conditions and to decide with full knowledge of the facts whether it is useful to bring his or her case before the court or tribunal having jurisdiction and, on the other hand, enable that court or tribunal to review a decision taken on the application for international protection;

    - the national court or tribunal hearing an action brought against a decision taken on an application for international protection, which had been examined under the special examination scheme applicable to applications lodged by applicants who are from third countries designated as safe countries of origin, may, when it verifies, even indirectly, whether that designation complies with the material conditions for such a designation, set out in Annex I to that directive, take account of the information which it has itself gathered, provided, first, that it satisfies itself that that information is reliable and, second, that it guarantees the parties to the dispute that the adversarial principle is observed.

    ...

    108. Consequently, in the light of the requirements referred to in paragraphs 66 and 85 above, and since it is Article 37 of Directive 2013/32, and not Article 61(2) of Regulation 2024/1348, which applies to the disputes in the main proceedings, it is for the referring court, in accordance with Article 46(3) of that directive, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, to verify, on the basis of the information in the file and that brought to its attention during the proceedings before it, whether the designation of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh as a safe country of origin – provided for in Article 2bis(1) of Legislative Decree No 25/2008 following its amendment by Decree-Law No 158/2024 – satisfies the material conditions for such a designation, set out in Annex I to that directive, with regard to the entire population of that third country.


     

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)