Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content

​​

07/06/2016
CJEU ruled on the interpretation of Articles 19 and 27 of the Dublin regulation.
07/06/2016
CJEU ruled on the interpretation of Articles 19 and 27 of the Dublin regulation.

ECLI
ECLI:EU:C:2016:410
Input Provided By
EUAA Courts and Tribunals Network
Other Source/Information
Type
Judgment
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)
Reference
European Union, Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU], George Karim (Syrian) v Swedish Migration Board (Migrationsverket), Case C-155/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:410, 07 June 2016. 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=701
Case history
Other information
Abstract

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 19 (Cessation of responsibilities) and 27 (Remedies) of 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 international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person.


The request has been made in proceedings between Mr George Karim, a Syrian national, and the Migrationsverket (Migration Board, Sweden; ‘the Board') concerning the latter's decision to reject Mr Karim's application for a residence permit and to transfer him to Slovenia.


The Court (Grand Chamber), rules as follows:


1. Article 19(2) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 must be interpreted to the effect that that provision, in particular its second subparagraph, is applicable to a third-country national who, after having made a first asylum application in a Member State, provides evidence that he left the territory of the Member States for a period of at least three months before making a new asylum application in another Member State.


2. Article 27(1) of Regulation No 604/2013, read in the light of recital 19 thereof, must be interpreted to the effect that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, an asylum applicant may, in an action challenging a transfer decision made in respect of him, invoke an infringement of the rule set out in the second subparagraph of Article 19(2) of that regulation.


Country of Decision
European Union
Court Name
EU: Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU]
Case Number
Case C-155/15
Date of Decision
07/06/2016
Country of Origin
Keywords
Dublin/AMMR procedure
Effective remedy
Non-refoulement
Source
CURIA