Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof – Germany) – Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Kaveh Puid

(Case C-4/11) ¹

(Asylum – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 4 – Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 – Article 3(1) and (2) – Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national – Articles 6 to 12 – Criteria for determining the Member State responsible – Article 13 – Fall-back clause)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Respondent: Kaveh Puid

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling – Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof – Interpretation of the first sentence of Article 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1) – Duty of a Member State to take responsibility for examining an asylum application on the basis of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 where there is a risk of infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights and/or of non-application by the Member State responsible for the application according to the criteria laid down in the regulation of the minimum standards laid down in Directives 2003/9/EC and 2005/85/EC

Operative part of the judgment

Where the Member States cannot be unaware that systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the conditions for the reception of asylum seekers in the Member State initially identified as responsible in accordance with the criteria set out in Chapter III of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national provide substantial grounds for believing that the asylum seeker concerned would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which is a matter for the referring court to verify, the Member State which is determining the Member State responsible is required not to transfer the asylum seeker to the Member State initially identified as responsible and, subject to the exercise of the right itself to examine the application, to continue to examine the criteria set out in that chapter, in order to establish whether another Member State can be identified as responsible in accordance with one of those criteria or, if it cannot, under Article 13 of the Regulation.

Conversely, in such a situation, a finding that it is impossible to transfer an asylum seeker to the Member State initially identified as responsible does not in itself mean that the Member State which is determining the Member State responsible is required itself, under Article 3(2) of Regulation No 343/2003, to examine the application for asylum.

____________

¹ OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.