Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
22/01/2024
BE: The Council for Alien Law Litigation referred questions to the CJEU for preliminary ruling on Article 43(2) of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive, specifically on the qualification of a procedure as border procedure and the right to an effective remedy.

ECLI
Input Provided By
EUAA IDS
Type
Referral for a preliminary ruling
Original Documents
Relevant Legislative Provisions
Revised Asylum Procedures Directive (Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection) and/or APD 2005/85/CE
Reference
Belgium, Council for Alien Law Litigation [Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers - CALL], Applicants v Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (le Commissaire Général aux Réfugiés et aux Apatrides; de Commissaris-generaal voor de vluchtelingen en de staatlozen; CGRS; CGRA; CGVS), Nos 300 352, 300 351, 300 350, 300 348, 300 347, 300 349 and 300 346 , 22 January 2024. 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=4091
Case history
Other information
Abstract

Several applicants who received decisions from the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons following requests for international protection lodged at the border and rendered after the expiry of the four-week period provided for in Article 43(2) of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive (APD), lodged appeals with the Council for Alien Law Litigation. The Council decided on 22 January 2024. It observed that until the decisions were taken, the applicants continued to be kept in the same place which was geographically located in the territory.


After recalling the relevant European and national provisions and their practical implication, the Council referred preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union, first related to the qualification – before and after the expiration of the four-week period provided for in Article 43.2 of the recast APD – of a procedure carried out in a place of maintenance located geographically on the territory, but assimilated by a regulatory text to a place located at the border and on the extent of the powers of the asylum authorities within the framework of this or these procedure(s), while the second question relates to the right to an effective remedy, namely to the obligations of the national judge who finds that irregularities have been committed in the context of a border procedure and whether the judge is under the obligation to raise ex officio the expiry of the four weeks deadline.


The case was registered with the CJEU under C-50/24 [Danané].


Country of Decision
Belgium
Court Name
BE: Council for Alien Law Litigation [Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers - CALL]
Case Number
Nos 300 352, 300 351, 300 350, 300 348, 300 347, 300 349 and 300 346
Date of Decision
22/01/2024
Country of Origin
Libya;Morocco
Keywords
Border procedures
Detention/ Alternatives to Detention
Effective remedy
Length of procedure/timely decision/time limit to decide
Other Source/Information
CURIA
RETURN