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 : 26/07/2017
Type : Judgment
ECLI : ECLI:EU:C:2017:591
Case Number/Citation/ Document Symbol : C‑348/16

Moussa Sacko (Mali) v Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della protezione internazionale di Milano [Italy]


The CJEU ruled on when the courts may dismiss an appeal without providing a personal hearing.

The case concerned the interpretation of Articles 12, 14, 31 and 46 of the Asylum Procedures Directive.

The applicant, a Malian national, arrived in Italy on 20 March 2015 and submitted an application for international protection. On 10 March 2016, he was interviewed by the Regional Commission attached to the Prefettura di Milano (Milan Prefecture, Italy). The conclusion of the interview was apparent that the applicant left Mali because of a serious deterioration in his personal economic circumstances. On 5 April 2016, the Regional Commission rejected his application comcluding that that the application was based on strictly economic grounds and that he did not have any well-founded fear of persecution. He lodged an appeal against the decision and the referring court stayed the proceedings and indicated to the CJEU that it would dismiss his appeal as manifestly unfounded, without first giving him the opportunity to be heard but was doubting whether that approach was compatible with EU law. The referring court asked whether in such a case a court could "dismiss the application for judicial review without preparatory inquiries and without being required to afford the applicant a further opportunity to be heard."

The CJEU held that the Asylum Procedures Directive, Articles 12, 14, 31 and 46, read in the light of Article 47 of the EU Charter "must be interpreted as not precluding the national court or tribunal hearing an appeal against a decision rejecting a manifestly unfounded application for international protection from dismissing the appeal without hearing the applicant where the factual circumstances leave no doubt as to whether that decision was well founded, on condition that, first, during the proceedings at first instance, the applicant was given the opportunity of a personal interview on his or her application for international protection, in accordance with Article 14 of the directive, and the report or transcript of the interview, if an interview was conducted, was placed on the case-file, in accordance with Article 17(2) of the directive, and, second, the court hearing the appeal may order that a hearing be conducted if it considers it necessary for the purpose of ensuring that there is a full and ex nunc examination of both facts and points of law, as required under Article 46(3) of the directive."


Effective remedy; Personal Interview/ Oral hearing;

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights ; Revised Asylum Procedures Directive (Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection) and/or APD 2005/85/CE;


European Union, Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU], Moussa Sacko (Mali) v Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della protezione internazionale di Milano [Italy], C‑348/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:591, 26 July 2017. Link redirects to the English summary in the EASO Case Law Database.