Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
17/05/2021
IT: Preliminary question referred by the Milano Tribunal on the interpretation of the Dublin III Regulation

ECLI
Input Provided By
EUAA IDS
Other Source/Information
Type
Referral for a preliminary ruling
Original Documents
Relevant Legislative Provisions
Dublin Regulation III (Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for IP)
Reference
Italy, Civil Court [Tribunali], PP v Ministero dell’Interno, Dipartimento per le Libertà civili e l’Immigrazione – Unità Dublino, 17 May 2021. Link redirects to the English summary in the EUAA Case Law Database.
Permanent link to the case
https://caselaw.euaa.europa.eu/pages/viewcaselaw.aspx?CaseLawID=1938
Case history
Other information
Abstract

Case registered before the CJEU as Case C-315/21


According to the Curia database: 


The questions referred in the preliminary ruling are:


"Must Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EU) 604/2013, the Dublin Regulation, be interpreted as meaning that infringement thereof in itself renders unlawful a decision challenged under Article 27 of Regulation (EU) 604/2013, irrespective of the specific consequences of that infringement for the content of the decision and the identification of the Member State responsible?


Must Article 27 of Regulation (EU) 604/2013, read in conjunction with Article 18(1)(a) or with Articles 18(2)(b), (c) and (d) and with Article 20(5) of the Dublin III Regulation, be interpreted as identifying different subjects of appeal, different complaints to be raised in judicial proceedings and different aspects of infringement of the obligations to provide information and conduct a personal interview under Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EU) 604/2013?


If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative, must Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 be interpreted as meaning that the guarantees relating to information, provided for therein, are enjoyed only in the scenario set out in Article 18(1)(a) and not also in the take back procedure, or must they be interpreted as meaning that in that procedure the obligations to provide information are enjoyed at least in relation to the cessation of responsibilities referred to in Article 19 or the systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants which result in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union referred to in Article 3(2)?


Must Article 3(2) be interpreted as meaning that ‘systemic flaws in the asylum procedure’ includes any consequences of final decisions rejecting an application for international protection already adopted by the court of the Member State effecting the take back, where the court seised pursuant to Article 27 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 considers that there is a real risk that the applicant could suffer inhuman and degrading treatment if he or she is returned to his or her country of origin by the Member State, also having regard to the presumed existence of a general armed conflict within the meaning of Article 15(c) of Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011? "


Country of Decision
Italy
Court Name
IT: Civil Court [Tribunali]
Case Number
Date of Decision
17/05/2021
Country of Origin
Keywords
Country of Origin Information
Dublin procedure
Non-refoulement
Return/Removal/Deportation
Second instance determination / Appeal
Torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment