The applicant was a Senegalese national who applied unsuccessfully for asylum in Belgium. He then made a subsequent examination for asylum which, following a preliminary examination, was not accepted. He was later served with an expulsion order. He challenged a decision to withdraw his social assistance before the courts, which found that the only remedy under Belgian law against a decision refusing to take into account a subsequent application was an appeal seeking annulment and suspension under the extreme urgency procedure. It stayed proceedings and requested a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as to whether that was compatible with the right to an effective remedy contained in Article 39 of the Procedures Directive (2005/85/EC).
The CJEU held that Article 39, read in the light of Articles 19(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR), was to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which did not confer suspensive effect on an appeal brought against a decision not to examine further a subsequent application for asylum. Its enforcement was not likely to expose the applicant concerned to a risk of ill-treatment contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and did not constitute a breach of the right to effective judicial protection as provided for in Article 39 of the Procedures Directive, when read in the light of Articles 19(2) and 47 of the CFR.
The CJEU remitted the matter to the Belgian court to apply its national law in the light of its ruling.