Title	Alekszij Torubarov v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal (Case C–556/17), request for a preliminary ruling
Publisher	European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union
Publication Date	29 July 2019
Country	Hungary | Russian Federation
Topics	Administrative law | Effective remedy
Citation / Document Symbol	ECLI:EU:C:2019:626
Related Document(s)	OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL BOBEK in Case C‑556/17 Alekszij Torubarov v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Administrative and Labour Court, Pécs, Hungary))
Cite as	Alekszij Torubarov v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal (Case C–556/17), request for a preliminary ruling , ECLI:EU:C:2019:626 , European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union, 29 July 2019, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,ECJ,5d7a33314.html [accessed 26 October 2019]
Comments	Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, where a first-instance court or tribunal has found — after making a full and ex nunc examination of all the relevant elements of fact and law submitted by an applicant for international protection — that, under the criteria laid down by Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection and for the content of the protection granted, that applicant must be granted such protection on the ground that he or she relied on in support of his or her application, but after which the administrative or quasi-judicial body adopts a contrary decision without establishing that new elements have arisen that justify a new assessment of the international protection needs of the applicant, that court or tribunal must vary that decision which does not comply with its previous judgment and substitute its own decision for it as to the application for international protection, disapplying as necessary the national law that would prohibit it from proceeding in that way.
Disclaimer	This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.