The case is registered before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) under under Case C-758/24 [Alace].

The applicant, a national of Bangladesh, requested international protection, and his application was rejected by the Territorial Commission of Rome on grounds that he came form a safe country of origin. He appealed this decision to the Tribunal of Rome, which referred the following questions to the CJEU:

1. Does EU law, and in particular Articles 36, 37 and 38 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive (recast APD),  read also in conjunction with recitals 42, 46 and 48 of that directive, and interpreted in the light of Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (and Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR), preclude a national legislature, which has the authority to consent to the drawing up of lists of safe countries of origin and to prescribe the criteria to be applied and the sources to be used for that purpose, from also directly designating a third country as a safe country of origin, by a legislative act of primary law?
2. In any event, does EU law, and in particular Articles 36, 37 and 38 of the recast APD, read also in conjunction with recitals 42, 46 and 48 of that directive, and interpreted in the light of Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (and Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR), preclude, at the very least, the legislature from designating a third country as a safe country of origin without making the sources used to justify that designation accessible and verifiable, thus preventing an asylum seeker from challenging, and the court from reviewing, the origin, authoritativeness, reliability, relevance, topicality, completeness and, in any event, the content in general of those sources, and from making their own assessments as to whether the substantive conditions for such a designation, laid down in Annex I to the directive, are satisfied?
3. Should EU law, and in particular Articles 36, 37 and 38 of the recast APD, read also in conjunction with recitals 42, 46 and 48 of that directive, and interpreted in the light of Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (and Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR), be interpreted as meaning that, in the course of an accelerated border procedure [for persons from] a country of origin designated as safe, the courts may in any event use information on the country of origin drawn independently from the sources referred to in Article 37(3) of the recast APD, which can be used to establish whether the substantive conditions for such a designation, laid down in Annex I to that directive, are satisfied?
4. Does EU law, and in particular Articles 36, 37 and 38 of the recast APD, read also in conjunction with recitals 42, 46 and 48 of that directive, and interpreted in the light of Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (and Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR), preclude a third country from being designated as a ‘safe country of origin’ where there are categories of persons in that country for whom it does not meet the substantive conditions for such a designation laid down in Annex I to that directive?

An identical referral has been submitted by the same tribunal, registered as case C-759/2024 [Canpelli]. The CJEU decided by order of 29 November 2024 to jointly assess the cases under the expedited procedure.  

The Advocate general presented its opinion on the cases on 10 April 2025. 

A third similar case was submitted and registered under case C-786/24 [Trestemi].