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-69/10)(1)
(Directive 2005/85/EC - Minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status - ‘Decision taken on (the) application for asylum’ within the meaning of Article 39 of Directive 2005/85 - Application by a third country national for refugee status - Failure to provide reasons justifying the grant of international protection - Application rejected under an accelerated procedure - No remedy against the decision to deal with the application under an accelerated procedure - Right to effective judicial review)
2011/C 298/08
Language of the case: French
Applicant: Brahim Samba Diouf
Defendant: Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) — Interpretation of Article 39 of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13) — Application by a third country national, without a legal right of residence, for refugee status — Rejection of that application in a national accelerated procedure in the absence of grounds justifying the grant of international protection — Conformity with Community law of national legislation excluding any appeal against the decision to treat the application under the accelerated procedure — Right to effective judicial review
On a proper construction, Article 39 of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, and the principle of effective judicial protection, do not preclude national rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which no separate action may be brought against the decision of the competent national authority to deal with an application for asylum under an accelerated procedure, provided that the reasons which led that authority to examine the merits of the application under such a procedure can in fact be subject to judicial review in the action which may be brought against the final decision rejecting the application — a matter which falls to be determined by the referring court.
* * *
(1)
OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.