CJEU: Five new requests for preliminary rulings from Belgium on Dublin III, Family Reunification, and Return

Date: 
Friday, May 17, 2019

The CJEU has received five new requests for preliminary rulings from Belgium.

The first request, H.A. v. Council of State, Belgium (C194/19) concerns Regulation 604/2013, the ‘Dublin III Regulation’, and circumstances arising following a Dublin transfer:

  • Must Article 27 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  (recast), considered alone or in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as requiring a national court, in order to guarantee the right to an effective remedy, to take into consideration, where appropriate, circumstances arising subsequent to a ‘Dublin transfer’ decision?

 
The second request, B. v. Public Centre for Social Welfare Liege, Belgium (C-233/19), concerns return under Directive 2008/115/EC:

  • Must Articles 5 and 13 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 returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in the light of Articles 19(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Article 14(1)(b) of that directive, read in the light of the judgment in Case C-562/13, delivered on 18 December 2014 by the Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber), be interpreted as endowing with suspensive effect an appeal brought against a decision ordering a third-country national suffering from a serious illness to leave the territory of a Member State, in the case where the appellant claims that the enforcement of that decision is liable to expose him to a serious risk of grave and irreversible deterioration in his state of health:
    • without it being necessary to examine the appeal, its mere introduction being sufficient to suspend the enforcement of the decision ordering the third-country national to leave the territory of that Member State; or
    • following a marginal review as to whether there is an arguable complaint, lack of grounds for inadmissibility or whether the action brought before the Conseil du contentieux des étrangers (Council for asylum and immigration proceedings, Belgium) is manifestly unfounded; or
    • following a full and comprehensive judicial review carried out by the labour courts in order to determine whether the enforcement of that decision is indeed liable to expose the appellant to a serious risk of grave and irreversible deterioration in his state of health?
 
The remaining requests concern family reunification for children under Directive 2003/86/EC, B.M.M., B.S. v. Council of State, Belgium (C-133/19),  B.M.M., B.M. v. Council of State (C-136/19), and B.M.O. v. Council of State (C-137/19).

Cases C-133/19 and C-136/19 submit:
  • In order to ensure the effectiveness of EU law and not to render it impossible to benefit from the right to family reunification which, in the second applicant’s submission, is conferred on her by Article 4 of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, must that provision be interpreted as meaning that the sponsor’s child may enjoy the right to family reunification when he attains his majority during the judicial proceedings against the decision which refuses him that right and which was taken when he was still a minor?
  • Must Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 18 of Directive 2003/86/EC be interpreted as precluding an action for annulment, brought against the refusal of a right to family reunification of a minor child, being held to be inadmissible on the ground that the child has attained his majority during the judicial proceedings, since he would be deprived of the possibility of securing a determination of his action against that decision and there would be a breach of his right to an effective remedy?
Case C-137/19 submits:
  • Must Article 4(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, read where appropriate with Article 16(1) of that directive, be interpreted as requiring that third country nationals, in order to be classified as ‘minor children’ within the meaning of that provision, must be ‘minors’ not only at the time of submitting the application for leave to reside but also at the time when the administration eventually determines that application?

This item was reproduced with the permission of ECRE from the ELENA Weekly Legal Update. The purpose of these updates is to inform asylum lawyers and legal organizations supporting asylum seekers and refugees of recent developments in the field of asylum law. Please note that the information provided is taken from publicly available information on the internet. Every reasonable effort is made to make the content accurate and up to date at the time each item is published but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by ECRE.

 

                                                     

 

Keywords: 
Dublin Transfer
Family reunification
Return