On 24 September 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment in Case C‑511/25 (Prokoda) following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Czech Supreme Administrative Court (Nejvyšší správní soud). The case concerned the interpretation of Article 17(1) Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (the ”Dublin III Regulation”) and whether a Member State may decide to examine an application for international protection where another Member State has been designated as responsible under the residual criterion of Article 3(2).
The Court noted that Article 17(1) refers to a derogation from Article 3(1), which could suggest that the discretionary clause applies only where responsibility is determined under the Chapter III criteria. However, the provision also refers more broadly to applications for which a Member State is not responsible under the criteria laid down in the Regulation. The Court therefore examined the context of the provision and found that Article 3(1) and (2) form part of the same system for determining the responsible Member State. While Article 3(1) refers to the Chapter III criteria, Article 3(2) provides a residual criterion where those criteria do not identify a responsible Member State. It would therefore be inconsistent to allow Member States to derogate from responsibility determined under Article 3(1), but not where responsibility is established under Article 3(2).
The Court further referred to its case law and reiterated that Article 17(1) grants Member States absolute discretion to examine an application for international protection for which they are not responsible under the Dublin III Regulation, on the basis of political, humanitarian or practical considerations.
It therefore concluded that this discretion may also be exercised where another Member State has been designated as responsible under the residual criterion in Article 3(2).