- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-528/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Policie ČR, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie v Salah Al Chodor, Ajlin Al Chodor, Ajvar Al Chodor, (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (Dublin III) — Article 28(2) — Detention for the purpose of transfer — Article 2(n) — Significant risk of absconding — Objective criteria — Absence of a legal definition)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015CA0528
62015CA0528
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 151/8
(Case C-528/15) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (Dublin III) - Article 28(2) - Detention for the purpose of transfer - Article 2(n) - Significant risk of absconding - Objective criteria - Absence of a legal definition))
(2017/C 151/11)
Language of the case: Czech
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Policie ČR, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie
Defendants: Salah Al Chodor, Ajlin Al Chodor, Ajvar Al Chodor
Operative part of the judgment
Article 2(n) and Article 28(2) 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, read in conjunction, must be interpreted as requiring Member States to establish, in a binding provision of general application, objective criteria underlying the reasons for believing that an applicant for international protection who is subject to a transfer procedure may abscond. The absence of such a provision leads to the inapplicability of Article 28(2) of that regulation.
*
Language of the case: Czech.
* * *
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.