Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial
Key facts of the case:
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Asylum policy – International protection – Directive 2013/32/EU – Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection – Articles 36 and 37 – Concept of ‘safe country of origin’ – Designation – Annex I – Criteria – Article 46 – Right to an effective remedy – Examination by the court of the designation of a third country as a safe country of origin
Outcome of the case: On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:
84. By its third question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that, where an action is brought before a court or tribunal against a decision rejecting 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 a failure to have regard to the material conditions for such designation, set out in Annex I to that directive, even if that failure is not expressly relied on in support of that action.
...
86. Furthermore, it should be recalled that it is apparent from the case-law of the Court 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, to that effect, judgment of 29 July 2019, Torubarov, C‑556/17, EU:C:2019:626, paragraphs 55 and 56 and the case-law cited).
98. It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the answer to the third question 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, where an action is brought before a court or tribunal against a decision rejecting 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, even if that failure is not expressly relied on in support of that action.