Language of document :

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 6 October 2017 — Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, I., D.

(Case C-586/17)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, I.

Other party: D.

Questions referred

1(a)    Does Article 46(3) 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) …, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude a system under which the administrative court of first instance in asylum cases may not, in principle, take into account a ground for asylum first put forward by a foreign national in the judicial proceedings before it when assessing that action?

1(b)    Does it matter in this regard whether a de facto new ground for asylum is put forward, that is to say, a ground for applying for international protection based on facts and circumstances which arose after the decision of the determining authority on the application for international protection, or whether it is a ground for asylum which was initially withheld, that is to say, a ground for applying for international protection which is based on facts and circumstances which arose before the decision of the determining authority on the application for international protection and which the foreign national knew about but was at fault for not disclosing in the administrative phase?

1(c)    Does it matter in this regard whether the ground for asylum is put forward in the framework of judicial proceedings before the administrative court of first instance in asylum cases challenging a decision of the determining authority on a first application or on a subsequent application for international protection?

2.    If Question 1(a) is answered in the affirmative, does EU law then also preclude an administrative court of first instance in asylum cases from choosing to refer the examination of a ground for asylum first put forward in the judicial proceedings before it for a fresh procedure before the determining authority, in order thereby to safeguard the due process of law in the judicial proceedings or to prevent those proceedings from being unduly delayed?

____________

1 OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60.