CJEU Case C-134/23 / Judgment

Somateio «Elliniko Symvoulio gia tous Prosfyges» and Astiki Mi Kerdoskopiki Etaireia «Ypostirixi Prosfygon sto Aigaio» v Ypourgos Exoterikon and Ypourgos Metanastefsis kai Asylou
Policy area
Asylum and migration
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Type
Decision
Decision date
04/10/2024
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2024:838

Carta drepturilor fundamentale a Uniunii Europene

  • CJEU Case C-134/23 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case: 

    Reference for a preliminary ruling – Granting of international protection – Directive 2013/32/EU – Article 38 – Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Concept of ‘safe third country’ – Classification of the Republic of Türkiye as a ‘safe third country’ – Readmission of applicants for international protection in third countries – Refusal

    Outcome of the case: 

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

    Article 38 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 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State classifying a third country as generally safe for certain categories of applicants for international protection where, despite the legal obligation to which it is subject, that third country has generally suspended the admission or readmission of those applicants to its territory and there is no foreseeable prospect of a change in that position.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    35. By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 38 of Directive 2013/32, read in the light of Article 18 of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State classifying a third country as generally safe for certain categories of applicants for international protection where, despite the legal obligation to which it is subject, that third country has generally suspended the admission or readmission of those applicants to its territory and there is no foreseeable prospect of a change in that position.

    55. In the light of the foregoing considerations, the interpretation of Article 38 of Directive 2013/32 adopted in paragraph 53 above is likewise not such as to deprive of any practical effect the right of an applicant for international protection, as enshrined in Article 18 of the Charter and given specific expression by that directive, to obtain the status of beneficiary of international protection, provided that the conditions required by EU law are met (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 February 2024, Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Admissibility of a subsequent application), C‑216/22, EU:C:2024:122, paragraph 39).

    56. Consequently, the answer to the first question is that Article 38 of Directive 2013/32, read in the light of Article 18 of the Charter, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State classifying a third country as generally safe for certain categories of applicants for international protection where, despite the legal obligation to which it is subject, that third country has generally suspended the admission or readmission of those applicants to its territory and there is no foreseeable prospect of a change in that position.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)