Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano — Italy) — FR v Ministero dell’interno — Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della Protezione Internazionale presso la Prefettura U.T.G. di Milano
(Case C-422/18 PPU) 1
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Area of freedom, security and justice — Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 46 — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 18, Article 19(2) and Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy — Decision rejecting an application for international protection — National legislation providing for a second level of jurisdiction — Automatic suspensory effect limited to the action at first instance)
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Tribunale di Milano
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: FR
Defendant: Ministero dell’interno — Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della Protezione Internazionale presso la Prefettura U.T.G. di Milano
Intervening party: Pubblico Ministero
Operative part of the order
European Union law, in particular the provisions 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, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for an appeal procedure against a first-instance judgment confirming a decision of the competent administrative authority which rejects an application for international protection, without granting it automatic suspensory effect, but which allows the court which has handed down that judgment to order, upon application by the person concerned, the suspension of its enforcement, after having assessed whether or not the grounds raised in the appeal brought against that judgment are well founded but not whether or not there is a risk of serious and irreparable damage for that applicant as a result of the enforcement of that judgment.
____________
1 OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.