The case was registered under Case C-406/22 before the CJEU.

The case concerned an applicant from Moldova whose application for international protection was rejected as unfounded because Moldova was designated as a safe country of origin. In appeal, onn 9 May 2022, the Krajský soud (Regional Court) granted his application for suspensive effect for the following reasons: 1) in Moldova, the applicant would face the risk of serious harm from private individuals who have previously harmed him; 2) on 8 May 2022, pro-Russian separatist troops in Transnistria were put on combat readiness; 3) Moldova has withdrawn from its commitments arising from the Convention. In January 2022, Moldova declared a state of emergency due to the energy crisis. In that context, it notified the Council of Europe on 25 February 2022 that it was withdrawing from its commitments under Article 15 of the Convention, including the right to freedom of expression under Article 10. One day before, the Moldovan Parliament had declared a state of emergency of siege and war in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The Administrative court decided to stay the proceedings and referred questions to the CJEU on the designation of safe countries of origin according to the recast APD as follows:

1. Should the criterion for the designation of safe countries of origin for the purposes of Article 37(1) [of the Directive] in Annex I(b) to the Directive – i.e., that the country concerned provides protection against persecution and ill treatment through observance of the rights and freedoms laid down in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in particular the rights from which derogation cannot be made under Article 15(2) of that convention – be interpreted as meaning that, if the country withdraws from its commitments under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in time of emergency under Article 15 of the Convention, it no longer meets the criterion for being designated as a safe country of origin?

2. Should Articles 36 and 37 [of the Directive] be interpreted as meaning that they prevent a Member State from designating a country as a safe country of origin only in part, with certain territorial exceptions, to which the assumption that that part of the country is safe for the applicant will not apply, and if the Member State does designate a country with such territorial exceptions as safe, then the country concerned as a whole cannot be deemed a safe country of origin for the purpose of the Directive?

3. If the reply to either of these two questions referred is affirmative, should Article 46(3) [of the Directive], in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that a court deciding about an appeal challenging the decision on the manifestly unfounded nature of the application, pursuant to Article 32(2) [of the Directive], issued in proceedings conducted pursuant to Article 31(8)(b) [of the Directive], must take into account ex officio that the designation of the country as safe is contrary to EU law, due to the reasons stated above, without requiring an objection on the part of the applicant?