Comment on Ruling Order No. 20480 of 2024: Information Obligations and the Subsidiary Function of the Judge

The recent Order No. 20480 of July 24, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers significant insights into international protection and information obligations within the context of the Dublin Regulation. The Court reiterated the importance of the judge's subsidiary function in relation to violations of the information obligations stipulated by Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013.

The Case in Question

In the specific case, the court had to address an appeal action concerning the transfer of an international protection applicant ordered by the Dublin Unit. The Court established that, although the judge has the function of remedying any violations, this must be done in compliance with the timeframes set by the proceedings. In particular, the Court quashed the appealed decision, highlighting that the court had not promptly exercised its subsidiary function, thereby compromising the possibility of rectifying the violation of information obligations.

International protection - Dublin Unit - Applicant's transfer - Information obligations - Violation - Consequences - Subsidiary function of the judge - Limits - Factual circumstances. In the appeal proceedings against the transfer ordered by the Dublin Unit for the resumption of responsibility for an international protection applicant by another Member State, the judge's subsidiary function, in remedying the violation of information obligations, provided for by Articles 4 and 5 of EU Regulation No. 604/2013, can only be exercised if it is compatible with the strict time constraints that characterize the proceedings in question. (In this case, the Supreme Court quashed the appealed decision and, ruling on the merits, annulled the transfer decree, as it was no longer possible to remedy the violation of information obligations, given that the court had not immediately exercised its subsidiary function and considering the time that had elapsed since the adoption of the act).

Implications of the Ruling

This ruling has important implications for international protection proceedings. In particular, judges must be aware of the need to act quickly to comply with the information obligations established by European legislation. Non-compliance with these obligations not only compromises the rights of applicants but can also lead to significant legal consequences for the authorities involved.

• Compliance with information obligations is crucial to ensure the applicant's right to defence.
• The judge has an active and subsidiary role in protecting fundamental rights.
• The timing of proceedings is essential to avoid procedural violations.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order No. 20480 of 2024 underscores a crucial aspect of justice in matters of international protection: the need for a timely response from judges to ensure respect for applicants' rights. This case not only clarifies the judge's responsibilities but also invites broader reflections on the protection of human rights within the European legal framework.