Registered before the CJEU with case no C-66/21

According to the application submitted to the CJEU:

"The applicant applied for asylum in the Netherlands, having previously lodged asylum applications in Italy and Belgium. He informed the Netherlands asylum authority that he had become the victim of human smugglers in Italy. The asylum authority decided not to examine his application on the ground that this was Italy’s responsibility because of the earlier applications. The applicant challenged that authority's decision, which would entail the applicant being transferred to Italy.

The take back request made by the Netherlands to Italy pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, raises the question of the interpretation to be accorded to Article 6 of Directive 2004/81/EC and to the guarantees (such as a reflection period or a residence permit linked to trafficking) which that article offers to thirdcountry nationals who claim to have been victims of human smuggling. Article 276 TFEU.

Question 1(a): Since the Netherlands has failed to specify in national law when the reflection period guaranteed in Article 6(1) of Directive 2004/81/EC commences, must that provision be interpreted as meaning that the reflection period commences by operation of law when the third-country national notifies (communicates) the trafficking in human beings to the Netherlands authorities?

Question 1(b): Since the Netherlands has failed to specify in national law the duration of the reflection period guaranteed in Article 6(1) of Directive 2004/81/EC, must that provision be interpreted as meaning that the reflection period ends by operation of law once the trafficking in human beings has been reported or the third-country national concerned indicates that he no longer wishes to report such trafficking?

Question 2: Are expulsion orders within the meaning of Article 6(2) of Directive 2004/81/EC to be understood to include orders for the removal of a third-country national from the territory of one Member State to the territory of another Member State?

Question 3(a): Does Article 6(2) of Directive 2004/81/EC preclude the adoption of a transfer decision during the reflection period guaranteed in the first paragraph of that article?

Question 3(b): Does Article 6(2) of Directive 2004/81/EC preclude, during the reflection period guaranteed in the first paragraph of that article, the enforcement of a transfer decision which has already been taken, or the preparations for such enforcement?"

*Note that the CJEU pronounced a judgment in this case: European Union, Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU], O.T.E. v State Secretary for Justice and Security (Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid), C-66/21, ECLI:EU:C:2022:809, 20 October 2022. Link redirects to the English summary in the EUAA Case Law Database.