full screen background image


21 September 2017 - October 5 & 6, 2017: ‘International Investment Law & the Law of Armed Conflict’ Colloquium on ‘International Inve ... +++ 21 September 2017 - 5 & 6 Οκτωβρίου 2017: International Investment Law & the Law of Armed Conflict 5 & 6 Οκτωβρίου 2017: ... +++ 29 April 2017 - Summer School on European Business Law, Corfu 2017, 24-28 Ιουλίου Το “Summer School” αποτε ... +++ 3 May 2016 - Εκδηλώσεις Τομέα Διεθνών Σπουδών – Κατεύθυνση Ι.Δ.Δ. ΑΝΑΚΟΙΝΩΣΗ Ο Καθηγ ... +++ 30 April 2016 - 9.5.2016: Ημερίδα – Το Πρόσωπο και η Οικογένεια στο Δίκαιο και την Κοινωνία   Το Ελληνικό Τμή ... +++ 30 March 2016 - 14th ICC Miami Conference on International Arbitration This conference provides an indispe ... +++

*Law of Aliens

Published on September 7th, 2018 | by Georgia Archonti


CJEU Judgment: Case C-213/17 X, 5 July 2018

On 5 July 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in case C-213/17 X, which concerned 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.

First, the Court ruled that the take-back procedure laid down in Article 23 DRIII is applicable to a third-country national who has lodged a new application for international protection in one Member State although an application for international protection lodged previously in another Member State had been rejected by a decision of the competent authority, even if that decision has not yet become final owing to the bringing of an appeal which is pending before a court of that other Member State. Therefore, the authorities of the Member State in which that new application was lodged have the power to make a take back request in respect of the person concerned, as long as this request is made as quickly as possible and in any event within the periods laid down in that provision, as per the Court’s conclusions in C‑670/16 Mengesteab. This is so even where that another Member State was responsible for examining an application lodged previously or where an appeal brought against the rejection of one of those applications is pending before a court of that Member State when those periods expired.

For further information click here….

About the Author

Back to Top ↑