Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court (Ireland) made on 23 April 2019 – KS, MHK v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General

(Case C-322/19)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: KS, MHK

Defendants: The International Protection Appeals Tribunal, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General

Questions referred

Where in interpreting one instrument of EU law that applies in a particular member state an instrument not applying to that member state is adopted at the same time, may regard be had to the latter instrument in interpreting the former instrument?

Does Art. 15 of the Reception Conditions Directive (Recast) 2013/33/EU¹ apply to a person in respect of whom a transfer decision under the Dublin III Regulation, Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013² , has been made?

Is a member state in implementing Art. 15 of the Reception Conditions Directive (Recast) ) 2013/33/EU entitled to adopt a general measure that in effect attributes to applicants liable for transfer under the Dublin III Regulation, Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013, any delays on or after the making of a transfer decision?

Where an applicant leaves a member state having failed to seek international protection there and travels to another member state where he or she makes an application for international protection and becomes subject to a decision under the Dublin III Regulation, Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013, transferring him or her back to the first member state, can the consequent delay in dealing with the application for protection be attributed to the applicant for the purposes of Art. 15 of the Reception Conditions Directive (Recast) ) 2013/33/EU?

Where an applicant is liable to transfer to another member state under the Dublin III Regulation, Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013, but that transfer is delayed due to judicial review proceedings taken by the applicant which have the consequence of suspending the transfer pursuant to a stay ordered by the court, can the consequent delay in dealing with the application for international protection be attributed to the applicant for the purposes of Art. 15 of the Reception Conditions Directive (Recast) ) 2013/33/EU, either generally or, in particular, where it may be determined in those proceedings that the judicial review is unfounded, manifestly or otherwise, or is an abuse of process?

____________

¹ 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, OJ 2013, L 180, p. 96

² Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, OJ 2013, L 180, p. 31