Judgment of the Court Fourth Chamber of 20 May 2021, L. R., C-8/20
| Date | 20 May 2021 |
| Year | 2021 |
12
Second, as regards the reasons stated for that regulation, the Court holds that the Co mmission set
out to the requisite legal standard the grounds which led it to specify the origin of the solar module s
and panels, grounds which enable the operators concerned to understand and contest the
Commission’s reasoning and the Court to assess the validity of the regulation at issue.
Third and last, the Court reviews the Commission’s reasoning relating to the determination of the
country of origin of the products at issue in the light of the criterion of the ‘last substantial processing
or working’ set out in Article 24 of the Community Customs Code. In that regard, the Court states that
the Commission did not commit any error of law or manifest error of assessment. In particular, the
Court upholds the Commission’s assessment that the ability to capture solar energy, and the ability
then to conv ert it into e lectricity, constitute fundamental properties of the solar cells, modules and
panels and determine the use to which they are to be put, so that the processing of silicon wafers into
solar cells possesses an importance greater than that of the improvements made in the subs equent
stage of assembling s olar cells in solar modules or panels and thus constitutes the ‘last substantial
processing’ of those various products for the purposes of Article 24 of the Community Customs Code.
V. ASYLUM POLICY
Link to the complete text of the judgment
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Border controls, asylum and
international protection – Application for international protection – Grounds of inadmissibility–
Article 2(q) – Concept of ‘subsequent application’ – Article 33(2)(d) – Rejection by a Member State of an
application for international protection as inadmissible due to the rejection of a previous application
made by the person concerned in a third State with which the European Union has concluded an
agreement on the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining an
application for asylum lodged in one of the States parties to that agreement – Final decision taken by the
Kingdom of Norway
In 2008, L.R., an Iranian national, lodged an application for asylum in Norway. His application was
rejected and he was surrendered to the Iranian au thorities. In 2014, L.R. lodged a further application
in Germany. In so far as the Dublin III Regulation,
16
which allows the Me mber State responsible for
examining an application for international protection to be determined, is also implemented by
Norway,
17
the German authorities contacted the authorities of tha t country requesting it to take
charge of L.R. However, those authorities re fused to do so, taking the view that Norway was no longer
responsible for examini ng his applicatio n, in accordance with the Dublin III Regulation.
18
Subsequently, the German authorities rejected L.R.’s application for asylum as inadmissible, taking
16
Regulation (E U) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for
determining the Member State re sponsible for examining an application for i nternational protection lodged in one of the Member States by
a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31, ‘ the Dublin III Regulation’).
17
Pursuant to the Agreement be tween the European Community and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the
criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Memb er State or in Iceland or
Norway – Declarations (OJ 2001 L 93, p. 40; ‘the Agreement between the Eur opean Union, Iceland and Norway’).
18
See Article 19(3) of the Dublin III Regulation.
To continue reading
Request your trial