CJEU: Opinion of Advocate General Bot, Case C-213/17 X

Wednesday, June 13, 2018

On 13 June 2018, Advocate General Bot published his opinion on case C-213/17 X. The case concerns a request for a preliminary ruling by the District Court of The Hague on the application of the Dublin III Regulation (DRIII) where an asylum applicant has lodged multiple asylum applications in two different Member States and is concomitantly the subject of a European Arrest Warrant.

In the Advocate General’s opinion, in view of the particular circumstances of the main proceedings, the transfer of responsibility as a result of the application of Article 23(3) DRIII, must be disregarded. According to the AG, doing otherwise would deprive the procedure to determine the responsible Member State of its rationality, objectivity, equality and speediness, which is also in contravention of the principle of solidarity and mutual cooperation between Member States. This would also be the case if a request to take charge is presented on the basis of Article 24(1) DRIII in a case such as that in the main proceedings where the requesting Member State had been initially responsible for a previous asylum application, where an appeal against a negative decision on a previous asylum application is still pending, and where the applicant is the subject of an European Arrest Warrant.

Moreover, AG Bot is of the opinion that Articles 31 and 46 DRIII, read in conjunction with Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, should be interpreted as meaning that, once a take charge request is sent to another Member State, the requesting Member State shall finalise, as quickly as possible, the examination of an asylum application of which it is responsible. The requesting Member State does not fail to meet its obligations in case it does not inform the requested Member State that a decision to reject a previous asylum application has been appealed against and is still pending.

Finally, the Advocate General argued that Article 17 DRIII is not applicable in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, as that provision is directed to a Member State where a third-country national has lodged an application for international protection. According to him, Article 17 DRIII does not impose an obligation on Member States nor is conditional on any particular circumstance being met; rather, it is restricted to a discretionary power of Member States.

Based on an unofficial translation by the ELENA Weekly Legal Update.

This item was reproduced with the permission of ECRE from the weekly ELENA 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. 



Dublin Transfer
Effective remedy (right to)