X (Syria) and X (Eritrean) vs State Secretary for Security and Justice, Netherlands (Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie)
The judgement dealt with the application of Article 5(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 of 2 September 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of the Dublin II Regulation. A Member State which has earlier denied a request of take charge or take back according to Articles 21 or 23 of the Dublin III Regulation within the time limits and which, thereafter, receives a re-examination request under Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1560/2003, must endeavour to reply to the re-examination request within two weeks. Where the requested Member State does not reply within that period of two weeks to the re-examination request, the additional re-examination procedure shall be definitively terminated. The result is that the requesting Member State will be responsible for the examination of the application for international protection, unless it still has time to lodge, within the mandatory time limits laid down in Article 21(1) and Article 23(2) of the Dublin III Regulation a further take charge or take back request. The judgement clarified the interpretation of the Regulation No 1560/2003. It was also held that the appeal with the Council of State does not have an automatic suspensive effect, and the applicant or his/her lawyer need to request separately a provisional measure to avoiding expulsion, pending the outcome of the appeal proceedings. The application itself for interim measures does not have automatic suspensory effect.
EASO Annual Report on the Situation of Asylum in the EU
European Union,EU: Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU], X (Syria) and X (Eritrean) vs State Secretary for Security and Justice, Netherlands (Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie), 13/11/2018, ECLI:EU:C:2018:900CJEU ruled on the Dublin procedure