The request for a preliminary ruling was submitted by the Czech Supreme Administrative Court in proceedings initiated by a Russian national against the Ministry of the Interior's decision which determined the Netherlands as the Member State responsible for examining the application for international protection.

The referring court asked the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) whether Article 17(1) first subparagraph of the Dublin III Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which was not designated as responsible may decide to examine the application for international protection submitted to it in a situation where the responsible Member State was designated pursuant to the criteria laid down under Article 3(2) first subparagraph of that regulation.

From the outset, the CJEU reiterated that the scope of the Dublin procedure as provided under Article 3(1) of the Dublin III Regulation is to ensure that an application for international protection is examined by a single Member State, designated as responsible according to the criteria set out in Articles 7 to 15 of Chapter III of that regulation. In the present case, the Ministry of the Interior determined that the Netherlands was responsible pursuant to Article 3(2) first subparagraph of the regulation, which stipulates that, where no responsible Member State can be designated on the basis of the criteria listed in Chapter III of the Dublin III Regulation, then the first Member State in which the application for international protection was lodged is responsible for examining it. Hence, the court held that, given its wording, Article 17(1) could be interpreted as meaning that Member States are allowed to derogate only from the criteria for designating the responsible Member State set out in Chapter III of the same Regulation, and not from the designation of the responsible Member State pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 3(2) of the regulation. Hence, since the wording of Article 17(1) needed clarifications, the court further considered the context and the objectives of this provision along with the elements comprised in its legislative history.

For instance, the court explained that Article 3 is situated under Chapter II, entitled "General principles and safeguards", and sets out the principle of single examination of an application, constituting a residual criterion to determine the responsible Member State when no other criteria from Chapter III applies. Recalling its findings in RO v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-720/20, 1 August 2022), the CJEU held that along with the residual criterion, the second and third paragraphs of Article 3(2) of the Dublin III Regulation provide for the situation in which the applicant cannot be transferred to the responsible Member State due to a serious risk of inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 4 of the EU Charter because there are serious reasons to believe that there are systemic deficiencies in that Member State's asylum procedure and reception conditions for applicants. Since this provision sets both a basic principle and a residual criteria, the court considered it would be inconsistent to interpret Article 17(1) of the regulation as meaning that Member State are conferred the power to derogate from the designation of the Member State responsible only pursuant to Article 3(1) of the regulation and not when designation is made based on Article 3(2) first subparagraph of that regulation.

The court emphasised that this interpretation is aligned with the genesis of both Articles 3 and 17 of the Dublin III Regulation. First, the residual criterion set out in Article 3(2) first subparagraph of the Dublin III Regulation reflects the previous Article 13(1) of the Dublin II Regulation which was found under Chapter III of the Dublin II Regulation, unlike the Dublin III Regulation. Second, Article 3(1) of the Dublin II Regulation was further mirrored in Article 3(1) of the Dublin III Regulation and contains the same principle of a single examination of the application for international protection by the Member State responsible as designated under the criteria laid down in Chapter III of that regulation.

In essence, the court held that Article 3(1) and (2), jointly with Article 13 (1) of the Dublin II Regulation clearly provided the possibility for Member States to decide to examine an application for international protection submitted to them in a scenario as in the present case, where the Member State responsible had been designated pursuant to the residual criterion enshrined in Article 13 (1) of that regulation. Moreover, the reason for the legislature to change the order of the articles in the Dublin III Regulation is found in the explanatory memorandum to the Commission proposal of 3 December 2008 [COM(2008) 820 final], which led to the adoption of the Dublin III Regulation. The court held that the EU legislator had no intention to change the scope of the discretionary clause which currently appears under Article 3(2) and 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation, but it envisaged to clearly define the basic principles of the regulation and to unite the discretionary and humanitarian clauses in a single provision.

Recalling its judgments in C.K. and Others v Republic of Slovenia (C-578/16 PPU, 16 February 2017) and M.A., S.A. and A.Z. v International Protection Appeals Tribunal and Others (Case C‑661/17, 23 January 2019), the CJEU affirmed that the discretionary clause contains the same elements as the previous Article 3(2) of the Dublin II Regulation which provided for the sovereignty clause, the interpretation of the latter being equally applicable to Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation.

In view of the scope of Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation to grant Member States a wide range of discretion, the CJEU held that this scope could not be limited to the sole situation where the Member State responsible would be designated according to the criteria laid down in Chapter III of the Dublin III Regulation. Conversely, the CJEU clarified that any Member State may decide to examine an application for international protection submitted to it and for the examination of which the responsible Member State has been designated in accordance with Article 3(2), first subparagraph of the Dublin III Regulation.

Against this background, the CJEU concluded that Article 17(1), first subparagraph, of the Dublin III Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which was not designated as responsible according to the criteria set out in Chapter III of that regulation may decide to examine an application for international protection submitted to it where the Member State responsible for examining that application has been designated pursuant to Article 3(2) first subparagraph of that regulation.