CJEU Case C-458/24 / Judgment

30. By its first and second questions, which it is appropriate to consider together, the referring court seeks, in essence, to ascertain whether the second and third subparagraphs of Article 3(2) of the Dublin III Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the determining Member State is required to continue its examination of the criteria laid down in Chapter III of that regulation, or even itself become the Member State responsible, where the Member State initially designated as responsible under those criteria unilaterally suspended the taking charge and taking back of persons who are the subject of a transfer decision under that regulation, even where there are no systemic flaws in the latter Member State, resulting in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter.

31. In the first place, it should be borne in mind that the second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of the Dublin III Regulation provides that an applicant for international protection cannot be transferred to the Member State responsible for examining his or her application if there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be at risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter, because of systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants for international protection in that Member State. In that situation, in accordance with the second and third subparagraphs of Article 3(2) of that regulation, the determining Member State becomes the Member State responsible for examining the application for international protection if it finds, following examination of the criteria set out in Chapter III of that regulation, that the transfer cannot be made to any Member State designated on the basis of those criteria or to the first Member State in which the application was lodged (judgment of 19 December 2024, Tudmur, C‑185/24 and C‑189/24, EU:C:2024:1036, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).

32. It follows from the very wording of the second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of the Dublin III Regulation that the application of that provision is subject to two cumulative conditions. Only ‘systemic’ flaws, ‘resulting in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the [Charter]’, make the transfer of an applicant for international protection to the Member State responsible impossible and require the further examination of the criteria set out in Chapter III of that regulation for the purpose of determining the Member State responsible (see, to that effect, judgments of 29 February 2024, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Mutual trust in the event of transfer), C‑392/22, EU:C:2024:195, paragraphs 57 and 58, and of 19 December 2024, Tudmur, C‑185/24 and C‑189/24, EU:C:2024:1036, paragraph 35).

...

34. The second condition, which relates to there being a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter, is verified where such systemic flaws result in a risk, for the person concerned, of being exposed, in the Member State designated as responsible, to treatment that is contrary to Article 4 of the Charter (see, to that effect, judgments of 29 February 2024, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Mutual trust in the event of transfer), C‑392/22, EU:C:2024:195, paragraph 62, and of 19 December 2024, Tudmur, C‑185/24 and C‑189/24, EU:C:2024:1036, paragraph 38).

35. The Court has already held that the fact that the Member State designated as responsible under the criteria established in Chapter III of the Dublin III Regulation has unilaterally suspended the taking charge and taking back of applicants for international protection is not capable, in itself, of justifying the finding, pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of that regulation, of systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants for international protection in that Member State, resulting in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter (judgment of 19 December 2024, Tudmur, C‑185/24 and C‑189/24, EU:C:2024:1036, paragraph 43).

...

60. Second, the automatic transfer of responsibility for examining the application for international protection where the transfer of the person concerned does not take place within that time limit is, ultimately, the only way in which that person can be guaranteed effective access to the asylum procedure and, thus, the effectiveness of his or her fundamental right to seek asylum in a Member State, as guaranteed in Article 18 of the Charter.

...

66. In the light of all of the foregoing, the answer to the first and second questions is as follows:

• the second and third subparagraphs of Article 3(2) of the Dublin III Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the determining Member State is not required to continue its examination of the criteria set out in Chapter III of that regulation, nor does it itself become the Member State responsible, where the Member State initially designated as responsible under those criteria has unilaterally suspended the taking charge and taking back of persons who are the subject of a transfer decision under that regulation, where there are no systemic flaws in the latter Member State, resulting in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter;
• Article 29(2) of the Dublin III Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that, where the transfer of those persons cannot take place within the time limit for transfer laid down in Article 29(1) of that regulation, responsibility for examining applications for international protection is automatically transferred to the requesting Member State, even if the transfer does not take place as a consequence of the suspension, decided unilaterally by the Member State initially designated as responsible under the criteria set out in Chapter III of that regulation, of the taking charge and taking back of those persons.