According to the CJEU press release:

'Several persons originally from, inter alia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan applied for asylum in Italy. They had previously made similar applications in other Member States (Slovenia, Sweden, Germany and Finland). Since those other Member States agreed, in accordance with the Dublin III Regulation, to take back those applicants, Italy adopted transfer decisions in respect of those applicants. As a rule, it is for the first Member State seised to examine whether international protection is to be granted. The applicants objected to the transfer. The Italian courts hearing those disputes ask whether an applicant who makes a second asylum application must, as for the first application, be given the ‘common leaflet’ (that is to say, that it is uniform throughout the European Union), which contains information about the procedure and the rights and obligations of the applicant and, in addition, be entitled to a personal interview. Moreover, they ask whether it is possible to take into account, in the context of the examination of the transfer decision, the risk of refoulement of the applicant to his or her country of origin. Those courts therefore sought clarification from the Court of Justice.

The Court finds that the provision of the common leaflet and the conduct of a personal interview are required both upon a first asylum application and upon a subsequent application. The applicant is thus put in a position to be able to inform the authorities of the second Member State about anything that might prevent his or her transfer and might justify the latter Member State becoming the one responsible for examining his or her asylum application. A failure to comply with those obligations may, under certain conditions, justify the annulment of the transfer decision.

By contrast, the courts of the second Member State cannot examine whether the applicant, after the transfer to the first Member State, risks being returned to his or her country of origin. It cannot be otherwise unless the courts find that there are systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants for international protection in the first Member State. Differences of opinion between the Member State as regards the interpretation of the conditions for international protection do not establish the existence of systemic deficiencies. Each Member State must, save in exceptional circumstances, consider all the other Member States to be complying with EU law and particularly with the fundamental rights recognised by EU law.'

The CJEU ruled that:

"(1)      –      Article 4 of 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 international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person and

       Article 29 of Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the establishment of ‘Eurodac’ for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of Regulation No 604/2013 and on requests for the comparison with Eurodac data by Member States’ law enforcement authorities and Europol for law enforcement purposes, and amending Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 establishing a European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice

       must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to provide the information referred to therein, in particular the common leaflet – a model of which is set out in Annex X to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 of 2 September 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national – applies both in the context of a first application for international protection and a take charge procedure, under Article 20(1) and Article 21(1) of Regulation No 604/2013 respectively, as well as in the context of a subsequent application for international protection and a situation, as that covered by Article 17(1) of Regulation No 603/2013, capable of giving rise to take back procedures under Article 23(1) and Article 24(1) of Regulation No 604/2013.

–      Article 5 of Regulation No 604/2013

       must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to hold the personal interview referred to therein applies in the context of a first application for international protection and a take charge procedure, under Article 20(1) and Article 21(1) of that regulation respectively, as well as in the context of a subsequent application for international protection and a situation, as that covered by Article 17(1) of Regulation No 603/2013, capable of giving rise to take back procedures under Article 23(1) and Article 24(1) of Regulation No 604/2013.

–      EU law, in particular Articles 5 and 27 of Regulation No 604/2013,

       must be interpreted as meaning that without prejudice to Article 5(2) of that regulation, the transfer decision must, following an appeal brought against that decision under Article 27 of that regulation calling into question the absence of the personal interview provided for in that Article 5, be annulled unless the national legislation allows the person concerned, in the context of that appeal, to set out in person all his or her arguments against that decision at a hearing which complies with the conditions and safeguards laid down in the latter article, and those arguments are not capable of altering that decision.

–      EU law, in particular Articles 4 and 27 of Regulation No 604/2013 and Article 29(1)(b) of Regulation No 603/2013,

       must be interpreted as meaning that, where the personal interview under Article 5 of Regulation No 604/2013 has taken place but the common leaflet which must be provided to the person concerned pursuant to the obligation to provide information laid down in Article 4 of that regulation or in Article 29(1)(b) of Regulation No 603/2013 has not been provided, the national court responsible for assessing the lawfulness of the transfer decision may order that that decision be annulled only if it considers, in the light of the factual and legal circumstances of the case, that the failure to provide the common leaflet, notwithstanding the fact that the personal interview has taken place, actually deprived that person of the possibility of putting forward his or her arguments, to the extent that the outcome of the administrative procedure in respect of that person could have been different.

(2)      Article 3(1) and the second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Regulation No 604/2013, read in conjunction with Article 27 of that regulation and with Articles 4, 19 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights,

must be interpreted as meaning that the court or tribunal of the requesting Member State, hearing an action challenging a transfer decision, cannot examine whether there is, in the requested Member State, a risk of infringement of the principle of non-refoulement to which the applicant for international protection would be exposed during his or her transfer to that Member State or thereafter where that court or tribunal does not find that there are, in the requested Member State, systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants for international protection. Differences of opinion between the authorities and courts in the requesting Member State, on the one hand, and those of the requested Member State, on the other hand, as regards the interpretation of the material conditions for international protection do not establish the existence of systemic deficiencies.

(3)      Article 17(1) of Regulation No 604/2013, read in conjunction with Article 27 thereof and with Articles 4, 19 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights,

must be interpreted as not requiring the court or tribunal of the requesting Member State to declare that Member State responsible where it disagrees with the assessment of the requested Member State as to the risk of refoulement of the person concerned. If there are no systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants for international protection in the requested Member State during the transfer or thereafter, nor can the court or tribunal of the requesting Member State compel the latter to examine itself an application for international protection on the basis of Article 17(1) of Regulation No 604/2013 on the ground that there is, according to that court or tribunal, a risk of infringement of the principle of non-refoulement in the requested Member State."