(Case C-269/18)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, J, S

Questions referred

1.In the case where a determining authority has rejected an application for international protection as being manifestly unfounded within the meaning of Article 46(6)(a) 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) and the appeal brought against that rejection before a court under national law does not have automatic suspensive effect, must Article 46(8) of that directive then be interpreted as meaning that the mere lodging of an application for interim relief results in the applicant’s stay on the territory of the Member State no longer being illegal within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 2008/115/EC (2) 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 and that he therefore comes within the scope of Directive 2013/33/EU (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast)?

2.Is it material to the answer to Question 1 that national law — having regard to the principle of non-refoulement — provides that an applicant will not be removed before a court has, on request, ruled that the outcome of the appeal against the decision refusing international protection cannot be awaited?

Language of the case: Dutch

(1) OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60.

(2) OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.

(3) OJ 2013 L 180, p. 96.