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
(Case C-821/19) (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>)
(Actions for failure to fulfil obligations - Area of freedom, security and justice - Asylum policy - Directives 2013/32/EU and 2013/33/EU - Procedure for granting international protection - Grounds of inadmissibility - Concepts of ‘safe third country’ and ‘first country of asylum’ - Assistance given to asylum seekers - Criminalisation - Prohibition on entry to the border transit zone of the relevant Member State)
(2022/C 24/05)
Language of the case: Hungarian
Applicant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Tomkin, A. Tokár and M. Condou-Durande, and subsequently by J. Tomkin and A. Tokár, acting as Agents)
Defendant: Hungary (represented by: K. Szíjjártó, M. Tátrai and M.Z. Fehér, acting as Agents)
The Court:
—Article 33(2) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection by allowing an application for international protection to be rejected as inadmissible on the ground that the applicant arrived on its territory via a State in which that person was not exposed to persecution or a risk of serious harm, or in which a sufficient degree of protection is guaranteed;
—Article 8(2) and Article 22(1) of Directive 2013/32 and Article 10(4) of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection by criminalising in its national law the actions of any person who, in connection with an organising activity, provides assistance in respect of the making or lodging of an application for asylum in its territory, where it can be proved beyond all reasonable doubt that that person was aware that that application could not be accepted under that law;
—Article 8(2), Article 12(1)(c) and Article 22(1) of Directive 2013/32 and Article 10(4) of Directive 2013/33 by preventing any person who is suspected of having committed such an offence from the right to approach its external borders;
4. Orders the European Commission to bear one fifth of its costs.
*
Language of the case: Hungarian
(1) OJ C 19, 20.1.2020