Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
European Union
Country of Decision : European Union
Court Name : EU: Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU]
Date of decision : 19/03/2020
Type : Judgment
ECLI : ECLI:EU:C:2020:216
Case Number/Citation/ Document Symbol : Case C‑406/18

PG v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal [Hungary]

CJEU rules on the scope of appeal and reassessment when an administrative decision is annulled and referred back to first instance authority

This preliminary request concerns the interpretation of Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32 (recast APD) in the light of the EU Charter. In particular, concerns the reasonable length of proceedings and whether the right to an effective remedy, set out in Article 46(3) of the recast APD, is complied with where the national courts lack the power to amend the administrative decision but instead they only annul them and order that a new procedure be conducted.

The Court ruled that Article 46(3) of the recast APD must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation conferring courts the power to solely annul the decisions of competent authorities in matters of international protection, excluding the power to amend them. However, in the event the file is being referred to the competent administrative authority, a new decision should be adopted within a short period of time and in compliance with the assessment contained in the judgment annulling the decision.

In the event that the national court held that the applicant concerned must be granted international protection and after the court's referral of the case back to the determining authority, the latter adopts a contrary decision without establishing new elements to justify a new assessment, in the absence of any other means to ensure compliance with the previous judgment, the court must amend the new decision of the administrative authority by disapplying, if necessary, the national law that prohibits the court from proceeding in this way.

Article 46(3) of the recast APD, read in the light of Article 47 of the EU Charter, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation providing the court with a period of 60 days to decide, provided that the court is able to ensure within such a period the effectiveness of substantive and procedural guarantees provided to the applicant by EU law. Otherwise, the court must not apply the national regulations establishing the period of adjudication and, after that period elapsed, to render a judgment as promptly as possible.

Assessment of Application; Effective remedy; Second Instance determination;

Revised Asylum Procedures Directive (Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection) and/or APD 2005/85/CE; Revised Qualification Directive (Directive 2011/95/EU on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as BIP for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection- recast)/or QD 2004/83/EC;

EASO IDS

European Union, Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU], PG v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal [Hungary], Case C‑406/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:216, 19 March 2020. Link redirects to the English summary in the EASO Case Law Database.

https://caselaw.easo.europa.eu/pages/viewcaselaw.aspx?CaseLawID=1017