On 4 October 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its judgement In Case C‑134/23. The latter case concerns the validity of ministerial orders designating the Republic of Turkey as a "safe third country" for certain categories of applicants for international protection. In Case C‑134/23, the applicants argued that the possibility of the applicants for international protection covered by those orders being readmitted to Turkey is not guaranteed "by international agreements" and, secondly, that there is no reasonable prospect for the applicants for international protection to be readmitted to Turkey since that third country has, since March 2020 and the COVID-19 pandemic, frozen the readmissions of such applicants to its territory.

The Court stated that Article 38 of Directive 2013/32 authorises a Member State to designate, by an act of general application, such as the second joint ministerial order, a country as a generally safe third country for specific applicants for international protection. 

The Court noted that "the proven admission or readmission of those applicants to that third country is not among the rules listed in Article 38(2) of that directive to which the application of the "safe third country" concept is subject in the Member States". But, according to Article 38(4) of that directive, where a Member State has, by an act of general application, designated a third country as generally safe, despite the suspension by that country of the possibility for applicants for international protection to enter its territory, that Member State must ensure that each of the applicants concerned has the right to access a procedure for the examination of his or her application for international protection. That Member State cannot reject their applications for international protection as inadmissible on the basis of Article 33(2)(c) of Directive 2013/32.

The Court concluded that Article 38 of Directive 2013/32/EU, read in the light of Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State classifying a third country as generally safe for certain categories of applicants for international protection where, despite the legal obligation to which it is subject, that third country has generally suspended the admission or readmission of those applicants to its territory and there is no foreseeable prospect of a change in that position.

For further details, please read the judgement In Case C‑134/23 here.