This is linked to Joined Cases C‑582/17 and C‑583/17

By order for reference of 27 September 2017, the Division asked the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the question asked about the interpretation of the Dublin Regulation (OJ 2013, L180). The Division thereby suspended the appeal proceedings until the Court of Appeal ruled and held any further proceedings. By judgment of 2 April 2019, H and R, the CJEU answered the question referred.

In the ruling of 31 October 2019, the ABRvS dealt with the answers of the Court of Justice. 

The following main rule follows from the judgment. If a third-country national has submitted an application for international protection first in one Member State (such as Germany in this case) and then travels on to a different Member State (such as the Netherlands in this case) and again submits an application for international protection there, he or she cannot rely on a Chapter III criterion in a legal remedy against a transfer decision taken by the Minister for Migration. Or, in the event of a readmission situation, a third-country national cannot in principle rely on a Chapter III criterion, including Article 9, in the second Member State.

There is however an exception to this main rule. If a third-country national (implicitly) withdraws his/her asylum application submitted in one Member State while the procedure to establish the responsible Member State has not yet been concluded, a situation exists that comes under Article 20(5) of the Dublin Regulation. In that case the third-country can rely on a Chapter III criterion in a legal remedy in the second Member State. The Minister for Migration must then assess whether the third-country national has provided information from which it is clearly evident that under that Chapter III criterion, the Netherlands is responsible for handling the application for international protection. If this is the case, the Minister for Migration will not be able to submit a valid readmission request to another Member State