The case is registered before the CJEU under C-790/23

The case concerned a Syrian applicant who applied for international protection in Denmark in 2016, where he received a temporary residence permit based on the need for protection under the Danish Aliens Act. In 2020, the Danish immigration authority decided on its own initiative not to extend the validity of the residence permit and thus the applicant left the country and applied for international protection in Finland in 2021.

The Finnish Immigration Service processed the application under the Dublin procedure, did not examine it and decided to transfer the applicant to Denmark as the state responsible to examine the asylum application. The applicant submitted an appeal before the administrative court, claimed that he was afraid that if transferred, then Denmark will return him to Syria. The applicant further appealed before the Supreme Administrative Court, agued that he risked being returned to Syria, that the transfer to Denmark means that his application will not be assessed with regards to subsidiary protection, and he risks being subject to treatment contrary to the Article 3 ECHR because he can be returned to Syria.

The court noted that the transfer deadline must be considered to have already passed, because the applicant has not fled from the authorities, and thus the deadline should not have been extended. In addition, the transfer has also not been carried out as soon as it has been practically possible.

The Finnish Immigration Service argued that Denmark's special status in the EU asylum system does not affect the application of the Dublin regulation and the responsibility of Denmark for processing the application. The FIS referred to the CJEU judgment SI, TL, ND, VH, YT, HN v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-497/21, 22 September 2022).

The court stated that the question at stake in the case was whether the requirements for the application of the readmission procedure stipulated in Article 18, paragraph 1, letter d of the Dublin III Regulation were met.

The Supreme Administrative Court stated that although Denmark applies the Dublin regulation, it does not apply the Qualification Directive and the Asylum Procedures Directive. As such, the national procedures applied in Denmark regarding the processing of applications for international protection may differ to some extent from the procedures of other member states. Therefore, it was necessary to assess how the wording 'the application has been rejected' in Article 18, paragraph 1, subparagraph d of the Dublin III Regulation had to be interpreted in the situation at hand.

The Supreme Administrative Court decided to postpone the hearing of the case and to submit a request for a preliminary ruling before the CJEU, with the following question:

Is Article 18(1)(d) of Regulation 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on establishing the criteria and procedures for determining the Member State responsible for processing an application for international protection submitted by a third-country national or a stateless person to a Member State to be interpreted in such a way that the rejection of the application referred to in the paragraph is meant a situation in which the validity of a temporary residence permit based on the need for protection previously granted to the person concerned in Denmark due to his application has not been extended, when the decision not to extend the validity has not been given due to the person's application but on the authority's initiative?