- 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-198/25, Quetta: Request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Zwolle (Netherlands) lodged on 11 March 2025 – S v Minister van Asiel en Migratie
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62025CN0198
62025CN0198
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 series
—
C/2025/3395
30.6.2025
(Case C-198/25, Quetta)
(C/2025/3395)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: S
Defendant: Minister van Asiel en Migratie
Questions referred
Can a court derive from Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32/EU, (2) whether or not read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, or from any other provision or principle of EU law, the power to make its own ruling on the credibility of an asylum account, superseding the ruling made by the minister?
Can the court derive from any of the abovementioned provisions the power to make a substantive and final ruling on the application for international protection on the basis of those parts of the asylum account which the minister deems credible and, if the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, those parts of the asylum account which the court also deems credible? In that regard, may the court substitute its own ruling on the plausibility of the fear of persecution or the real risk of serious harm for that of the minister, especially if, against the background of publicly accessible country information, the court considers itself sufficiently informed to make such a ruling?
Can national case-law constrain the powers referred to in questions 1 and 2, for example on the ground of procedural autonomy, to the effect that those powers are still vested exclusively in the minister?
May the court take into account information which was put forward on appeal, but which was not yet available at the administrative stage, in the ruling on the question whether it has enough information to make a substantive ruling? Is it relevant in that regard whether the parties have been able to express their views fully on the facts in writing or at the hearing?
—
The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.
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 (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3395/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—