Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
CJEU ruled on the Dublin procedure

Input Provided By
EUAA Asylum Report
Other Source/Information:
Referral to the CJEU
Original Documents
Relevant Legislative Provisions
Dublin Regulation III (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 IP); Eurodac Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 on the establishment of 'Eurodac' for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 and on requests for the comparison with Eurodac data by Member States';
European Union, Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU], X (Syria) and X (Eritrean) v State Secretary for Security and Justice, Netherlands (Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie), C-47/17 C-48/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:900, 13 November 2018. Link redirects to the English summary in the EUAA Case Law Database.
Permanent link to the case
Case history
Related cases:

The judgement dealt with the application of Article 5(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 of 2 September 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of the Dublin II Regulation. A Member State which has earlier denied a request of take charge or take back according to Articles 21 or 23 of the Dublin III Regulation within the time limits and which, thereafter, receives a re-examination request under Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1560/2003, must endeavour to reply to the re-examination request within two weeks. Where the requested Member State does not reply within that period of two weeks to the re-examination request, the additional re-examination procedure shall be definitively terminated. The result is that the requesting Member State will be responsible for the examination of the application for international protection, unless it still has time to lodge, within the mandatory time limits laid down in Article 21(1) and Article 23(2) of the Dublin III Regulation a further take charge or take back request. The judgement clarified the interpretation of the Regulation No 1560/2003. It was also held that the appeal with the Council of State does not have an automatic suspensive effect, and the applicant or his/her lawyer need to request separately a provisional measure to avoiding expulsion, pending the outcome of the appeal proceedings. The application itself for interim measures does not have automatic suspensory effect.

Country of Decision
European Union
Court Name
EU: Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU]
Case Number
C-47/17 C-48/17
Date of Decision
Country of Origin
Dublin procedure