On the correct interpretation of Article 27(1) of Regulation no. 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the establishment of criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for considering the application for. Article 27(1) of Regulation (EU) no. 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the establishment of criteria and mechanisms for the determination of the Member State responsible for examining the application for international protection.
Pending Preliminary References
It follows from the second sentence of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, interpreted in conjunction with recital 54 of Directive 2013/32/EU2, that, in the circumstances of the main proceedings, when no derogation under Article 17(1) of the Regulation exists, a decision must be given on an application for international protection within the meaning of Article 2(b) of the Regulation, whereby the Member State undertakes undertakes to investigate the request in good consultation. in accordance with the criteria of the scheme and which is based on the fact that the provisions of the scheme apply to the applicant. Does the concept of the “deciding Member State” in the regulations include the role of the Member State in exercising the power recognized or conferred by art.
Qualification Directive 2004/83/EC (recast 2011/95/EU)
20(3) of regulation 604/2013 have the effect that in the absence of any evidence to replace the presumption that it is in the best interests of a child to treat his or her situation as inseparable from that of the parents, the national decision maker it is not required to consider these best interests separately from the parents as a discrete matter or as a starting point for considering whether the transfer should take place.
Judgments
Article 12(2)(b) and (c) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards regarding the qualifications and status of third-country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or persons otherwise in need of international protection and the content of the protection granted must be interpreted so that. Judgment // Opinion of the AG // Application is Article 14(4) and (6) of Directive 2011/95/EU 1 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the standards for the fulfillment of the conditions of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for uniform status refugees or persons entitled to subsidiary protection, and for the invalid content of the recognized protection, because it violates Article 18 of the Charter of the European Union on Fundamental Rights, Paragraph 78. Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and general principles of EU law in accordance with Article 6(3) of the Treaty on European Union. C-78/17 X, Proposal for a preliminary ruling of the Conseil du Contentieux des étrangers (Belgium) on the interpretation of Article 14 § 4 of the Qualifications Directive.
If the answer to question A is no, should Article 14(4) of Directive 2011/95/EU be interpreted as introducing a basis for withdrawing refugee status which is not provided for in the Geneva Convention, compliance with which is required by Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. If the answer to question A is no, should Article 14(5) of Directive 2011/95/EU be interpreted as introducing a basis for refusing refugee status which is not provided for in the Geneva Convention, compliance with which is required by Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Does it follow from Article 33 (2) (e) of Directive 2013/32, in conjunction with Article 7 (3) and Article 2 (a), (c) and (g) and recital 60 of that directive, that, in Circumstances of the main procedure, an application for international protection submitted by a parent on behalf of an accompanied minor is inadmissible, when the reason given for the application is that the child is a member of the family of the person who applied for international protection on the grounds that he is a refugee within the meaning of Article 1(A) of the Geneva Convention on Refugees.
Can such acts, which are punishable in the country of origin of the applicant, be acts of persecution? Judgment // AG Opinion // Application It follows from Article 17 (1) b) of the Qualifications Directive that a "serious crime".
Procedures Directive 2005/85/EC (recast 2013/32/EU)
Judgment // AG Opinion // Implementing Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, in particular its articles and 46, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, should be interpreted as not excluding it. Case C-113/17 QJ: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic, filed on March 6, 2017. Article 39 of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of December 1, 2005 on minimum procedural standards in the States is required Article on the granting and withdrawal of refugee status (OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13; 'Procedures Directive'), read in conjunction with Articles and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, should be interpreted as meaning that, according to of EU law, if the national law provides for this purpose, in the procedures related to the rejection of an asylum application within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2005/85/EC, the legal remedy of appeal has an automatic suspensive effect.
Article 46 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) should be read (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60), in relation to articles and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that, according to EU law, if national law provides for this purpose, in procedures related to the rejection of an application for the granting of international protection, the means of appeal has automatic suspension effect. 1(a) Is article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32/EU 1 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) read ..., in relation to article 47 of Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, exclude a system according to which the administrative court of first instance in asylum cases cannot, in principle, take into account a reason for asylum presented for the first time by a foreign national in judicial proceedings before him during the assessment of that action. 8] that make a distinction between subsidiary rights that are based on the rights and benefits of the two forms of international protection.
Other relevant judgments
Judgment // AG Opinion // Implementing Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in the Member States for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals, in particular its articles 15 and 16, should be interpreted as excluding the legislation of a Member State, such as the one in question mainly. Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union should be interpreted as meaning that the applicant for a residence permit cannot rely on this provision against the national authorities. Decision // Opinion AG // Implementation The second sentence of Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in the Member States for the third return with residence illegal- nationals should be interpreted as not allowing a Member State to detain a third-country national for the purpose of removal to prison accommodation alongside ordinary prisoners even if the third-country national consents to this.
Article 15, subsection 3 and 6, of the European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in the Member States. Article 7, subsection 4, of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in the Member States for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as preventing a national practice whereby a third-country national , staying illegally on the territory of a Member State, is considered to pose a risk to public order in that sense. Judgment // AG Opinion // Application of European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/115/EC of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in the Member States for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals, in particular Article 6, paragraph ) and Article 8, subsection 1, read in.
Judgment // AG Opinion // Implementing Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as not in principle, which exclude legislation of a Member State which provides for the imposition of a prison sentence on an illegally staying third-country national who, after being returned to his country of origin in the context of an earlier return procedure, illegally re-enters the territory of that State in violation of an entry ban. Judgment // AG Opinion // Application Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in member states for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted than that the starting point of the duration of an entry ban, as referred to in that provision, which in principle may not exceed five years, must be calculated from the date on which the person concerned actually left the territory of the member states. .
Other relevant pending preliminary references
Should Union law, in particular Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC and Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter, be interpreted as precluding national practice under which a valid entry ban can be invoked to exclude a subsequent merger application family? with a static Union citizen settled in the territory of a Member State, without due regard to family life and the best interests of the children involved, who were mentioned in this subsequent application for family reunification. Should Union law, in particular Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC and Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter, be interpreted as precluding national practice whereby a removal decision is taken in relation to a third-country national already subject to a valid the entry ban without due regard to family life and the best interests of the children involved, which have been mentioned in the subsequent application for family reunification with a static Union citizen, i.e. Are there nevertheless circumstances in which Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter prevent such temporary separation.
Are there circumstances in which article 20 TFEU nevertheless excludes the fact that the static Union citizen would have to leave the territory of the European Union in its entirety for a limited time. In what way does the principle of proportionality play a role in assessing whether a declaration of undesirability can be imposed on a Union citizen to whom article 1(F)(a) and (b) of the Refugee Convention has been declared applicable, as in the present case. If the factors mentioned in Article 28(1) of the Residence Directive are involved, either as part of such an assessment, or separately.