The application of a Mauritanian national for international protection was, in first instance, rejected as unfounded, under an accelerated procedure, and the applicant ordered to leave Luxemburg. In the action brought against this decision before the referring tribunal, the applicant not only challenged the rejection and the order, but also the decision to apply an accelerated procedure. The tribunal, on the basis of its interpretation of the national law that this decision was not open for judicial review, decided to refer to ECJ. The tribunal pointed out that the main differences between ordinary and accelerated procedure were

a) a reduced time limit for the legal remedy (15 days instead of one month)

b) only one level of jurisdiction (before the tribunal itself), but no further access to the Administrative Court.

 

 

On a proper construction, Article 39 of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, and the principle of effective judicial protection, do not preclude national rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which no separate action may be brought against the decision of the competent national authority to deal with an application for asylum under an accelerated procedure, provided that the reasons which led that authority to examine the merits of the application under such a procedure can in fact be subject to judicial review in the action which may be brought against the final decision rejecting the application – a matter which falls to be determined by the referring court.