Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
18/08/2021
BE: The Liege Tribunal referred a case to the CJEU with questions on interpretation of the Article 27(3) 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
Belgium, Court of first instance [Tribunal de première instance], FU v Agence fédérale pour l’accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil), 18 August 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=2120
Case history
Other information
Abstract

Case registered under C-505/21


"Questions referred


Is Article 27(3) of the Dublin III Regulation (Regulation No 604/2013), where appropriate read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that an application for ordinary suspension, made together with an application for the annulment of a decision to transfer an applicant to a Member State declared responsible for examining his or her application for international protection, does not suspend the implementation of the transfer until a decision is given on that application for suspension?


Is Article 27(3) of the Dublin III Regulation, where appropriate read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that an application for suspension of a decision to transfer an applicant to a Member State responsible for examining his or her application for international protection suspends the implementation of the transfer until a decision is given on the application for suspension only if that application has been made on grounds of extreme urgency, where the applicant is the subject of a removal or refoulement order the enforcement of which is imminent, in particular where he or she is held in detention or is placed at the disposal of the government, and where he or she has not yet applied for the ordinary suspension of the decision at the same time as applying for its annulment?"


Country of Decision
Belgium
Court Name
BE: Court of first instance [Tribunal de première instance]
Case Number
Date of Decision
18/08/2021
Country of Origin
Keywords
Detention/ Alternatives to Detention
Dublin procedure
Effective remedy
Non-refoulement
Source
CURIA