Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
13/01/2021
NL: The Court of the Hague referred a case with questions on effective remedy in the Dublin procedure

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
Netherlands, Court of The Hague [Rechtbank Den Haag], I, S v State Secretary for Justice and Security (Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid), 13 January 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=2143
Case history
Other information
Abstract

Case registered before the CJEU under C-19/21


Questions referred


Must Article 27 of the Dublin Regulation be interpreted as requiring the requested Member State, whether or not in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, to provide the applicant residing in the requesting Member State and seeking transfer pursuant to Article 8 (or Article 9 or 10) of the Dublin Regulation, or the applicant’s family member referred to in Article 8, 9 or 10 of the Dublin Regulation, with an effective remedy before a court or tribunal against the refusal of the request to take charge?


If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative and Article 27 of the Dublin Regulation does not provide a basis for an effective remedy, must Article 47 of the Charter – read in conjunction with the fundamental right to family unity and the best interests of the child (as laid down in Articles 8 to 10 and recital 19 of the Dublin Regulation) – be interpreted as requiring the requested Member State to provide the applicant residing in the requesting Member State and seeking transfer pursuant to Articles 8 to 10 of the Dublin Regulation or the member of the applicant’s family referred to in Articles 8 to 10 of the Dublin Regulation, with an effective remedy before a court or tribunal against the refusal of the request to take charge?


If Question 2 or Question 2 (second part) is answered in the affirmative, in what way and by which Member State should the requested Member State’s decision to refuse the request and the right to appeal against it to be communicated to the applicant or the applicant’s family member?


Country of Decision
Netherlands
Court Name
NL: Court of The Hague [Rechtbank Den Haag]
Case Number
Date of Decision
13/01/2021
Country of Origin
Keywords
Dublin procedure
Effective remedy
Second instance determination / Appeal
Source
CURIA