Request for a preliminary ruling from the Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 23 December 2015 — Shiraz Baig Mirza v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal
(Case C-695/15)
Language of the case: Hungarian
Referring court
Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Shiraz Baig Mirza
Defendant: Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal
Questions referred
Should Article 3(3) of 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 1 (‘the Dublin III Regulation’) be interpreted as meaning that
(a) Member States may exercise the right to send an applicant to a safe third country only before determining the Member State responsible or that they may also exercise that right after making that determination?
(b) Is the answer to the preceding question different if the Member State establishes that it is the State responsible not at the time when the application is first lodged with its authorities in accordance with Article 7(2) of the Dublin III Regulation and Chapter III of that regulation but when it receives the applicant from another Member State following a transfer or take back request pursuant to Chapters V and VI of the Dublin III Regulation?
If, on the basis of the interpretation given by the Court in response to the first question, the right to send an applicant to a safe third country may also be exercised after a transfer carried out pursuant to the Dublin procedure:
Can Article 3(3) of the Dublin III Regulation be interpreted as meaning that Member States may also exercise that right if, in the course of the Dublin procedure, the Member State carrying out the transfer has not been informed of the precise national rules governing the exercise of that right or of the practice applied by the national authorities?
Can Article 18(2) of the Dublin III Regulation be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of an applicant who has been taken back pursuant to Article 18[(1)](c) of that regulation, the procedure must be continued at the stage where it was discontinued during the preceding procedure?
____________1 OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31.