(1)

Must Article 38 of Directive 2013/32/EU, (1) read in conjunction with Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding national (regulatory) legislation classifying a third country as generally safe for certain categories of applicants for international protection where, although that country has made a legal commitment to permit readmission to its territory of those categories of applicants for international protection, it is clear that it has refused readmission for a long period of time (in this case, more than 20 months) and the possibility of its changing its position in the near future does not appear to have been investigated?

Or

(2)

must it be interpreted as meaning that readmission to the third country is not one of the cumulative conditions for the adoption of the national (regulatory) decision classifying a third country as generally safe for certain categories of applicants for international protection, but is one of the cumulative conditions for the adoption of an individual decision rejecting a particular application for international protection as inadmissible on the ‘safe third country’ ground?

Or

(3)

must it be interpreted as meaning that, where the decision rejecting the application for international protection is based on the ‘safe third country’ ground, readmission to the ‘safe third country’ need be verified only at the time of enforcement of that decision?