After final rejection of his first asylum application, Mr. Tall, a Senegalese national, introduced a second asylum claim, which was not taken into consideration by the Belgian immigration authorities and the ‘Commissioner general for refugees and stateless persons’. Following this refusal, his access to social assistance was terminated. He was then ordered to leave the territory. Several days after, Mr. Tall lodged two appeals: one before the Council of Aliens Law litigation (hereafter, the CALL) against the decision refusing to take into consideration his second application for asylum; another before the Labour court (Liège) concerning withdrawal of his social assistance. Similarly to the Abdida case, only the Labour court addressed preliminary questions to the CJEU.
The referring court asked the CJEU whether the Asylum Procedure Directive, read in conjunction with Article 47 CFR, prohibits Belgian law (the one existing before the entry into force of Law 10 April 2014) which limits the examination that national courts can undertake under an appeal in subsequent asylum application, deprives the appeal of suspensive effect, and the individual of access to social benefits pending the appeal. The Belgian Government and the European Commission argued the preliminary question should be dismissed as inadmissible since the recent legislative amendment solved this issue by recognizing equal procedural treatment between the first application of asylum and subsequent asylum applications. In support of their claim they argued that the Belgian Constitutional Court recognized retroactive application of the Law, at least in regard to pending subsequent asylum application, as was the case of Mr. Tall.
- a. Reasoning of the CJEU
The CJEU held the preliminary reference admissible on the ground that it does not have competence to pronounce on the transitional application of the national law; secondly on the presumption of relevance of the preliminary reference of which national courts benefit under Article 267 TFEU, but also under the duty of sincere cooperation (Article 4(3) TEU).
At issue is, in essence, the conformity of a “fast track” or accelerated asylum proceeding with the requirements of Article 47 CFR. In particular, the CJEU was asked to assess whether Article 47 CFR requires, within the fast track asylum procedure, a suspensory effect of the appeal, regardless of the number of asylum application made; unlimited jurisdiction of the court hearing the appeal, and access to social benefits pending the appeal. It was thus an opportunity for the CJEU to clarify the Diouf case, which dealt with similar issues.
Although the CJUE upheld the discretion recognised to the Member States in Diouf, whereby they are not required to confer a full examination and suspensive appeal in accelerated procedure, where the applicant submits new asylum application without presenting new evidence, It enhanced the protection of the right to an effective remedy by restating the conclusions reached in the Abdida preliminary ruling delivered a year before the Tall judgment. 
Regardless of the type and number of asylum applications submitted, the follow-up return proceedings need to offer an appeal with suspensory effect, “when it is brought against a return decision whose enforcement may expose the third-country national concerned to a serious risk of being subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, thereby ensuring that the requirements of Articles 19(2) and 47 of the Charter are met in respect of that third-country national.”
 CJEU, Abdida, C-562/13, 18 December 2014, EU:C:2014:2453, where the Higher labour Court of Brussels requested for a preliminary ruling.
 Law of 10 April 2014 laying down various provisions concerning the procedure before the Council of Aliens law litigation and before the Conseil d’État, amending the Law of 15 December 1980, Mon. B., 21 mai 2014 (see CJEU, Tall, C-239/14, EU:C:2015:824, par. 30-34).
 Constitutional Court of Belgium, Judgment No 56/2015 of 7 May 2015.
 CJEU, Samba Diouf, C?69/10, 28 July 2011, EU:C:2011:524.
 CJEU, Abdida, C-562/13, 18 December 2014, EU:C:2014:2453, para. 40-45.
 CJEU, Tall, C-239/14, para. 58. See, to that effect, CJEU, Abdida, para. 52 and 53.