Case registered before the CJEU under C-208/22

The Court of the Hague decided to stay the proceedings and to submit preliminary questions on the divisibility of the principle of mutual interstate trust in view of systematic pushbacks. The same court referred questions to the CJEU on 4 October 2021 on the divisibility of the interstate trust principle in a procedure requesting the prohibition of a transfer to Malta – the State Secretary revoked the transfer decision in those proceedings on 15 February 2022, the court withdrew the request to answer the questions on 2 March 2022.

The court has submitted the same questions to the CJEU, supplemented by a question specifically related to on the consequences of the impossibility to complain in Croatia to the (higher) authorities and/or courts.

Questions referred to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling in an accelerated procedure:

I In the light of recitals 3, 32 and 39 in the preamble and read in conjunction with Articles 1, 4, 18, 19 and 47 of the EU Charter, is the Dublin Regulation to be interpreted and applied that the interstate principle of trust is not divisible, meaning that serious and systematic violations of EU law committed by the possibly responsible Member State before transfer with regard to third-country nationals who are not (yet) Dublin returnees absolutely preclude transfer to this Member State?

II If the answer to the previous question is in the negative, Article 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation, read in conjunction with Articles 1, 4, 18, 19 and 47 of the EU Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that if the potentially responsible Member State seriously and systematically infringes Union law, the transferring Member State cannot base itself on the principle of interstate confidence in the context of the Dublin Regulation, but must remove any doubts or must demonstrate that after transfer the applicant is not in a a situation that is contrary to Article 4 of the EU Charter?

III What means of proof can the applicant use to substantiate his arguments that Article 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation precludes his transfer and what standard of proof should be used in this regard? In view of the references to the EU acquis in the preamble to the Dublin Regulation, does the transferring Member State have a cooperation and/or verification obligation, or should individual guarantees be issued in the case of serious and systematic violations of fundamental rights vis-à-vis third-country nationals, obtained from the responsible Member State that the applicant's fundamental rights are (are) respected after transfer? Is the answer to this question different if the applicant is in need of evidence if he cannot substantiate his consistent and detailed statements with documents,

IV Is the answer to the previous questions under III different if the applicant demonstrates that complaining to the authorities and/or recourse to legal remedies in the responsible Member State will not be possible and/or effective?