The case concerned the interpretation of Article 25 of Directive 2005/85/EC (Qualification Directive). Three third-country nationals, M.S., M.W., and G.S., were granted subsidiary protection in Italy. In 2017, they entered Ireland and applied for international protection. Their requests were rejected on 1 December 2017, 2 February 2018, and 29 June 2018 because they already benefited from subsidiary protection in Italy. M.S., M.W., and G.S. appealed these decisions before the International Protection Appeals Tribunal in Ireland. The appeals were dismissed on 23 May, 28 September, and 18 October 2018. The applicants then brought further actions before the High Court of Ireland to annul these decisions.

Looking at the considerations in Ibrahim (C‑297/17, C‑318/17, C‑319/17 and C‑438/17, 19 March 2019), the High Court observed that Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU (recast APD) allows a Member State to reject as inadmissible an asylum application where the applicant has been granted international protection by another Member State, either refugee status or subsidiary protection. However, under Article 25(2)(a) of the Qualification Directive, such discretion is limited to cases where the applicant had been granted refugee status in another Member State.

As Ireland is bound by the Dublin III Regulation and the Qualification Directive, but not by the recast Asylum Procedures Directive, the High Court asked the CJEU whether, in such a case, Article 25 of the Qualification Directive must be interpreted to preclude legislation under which an application for international protection is considered inadmissible where the applicant has already been granted subsidiary protection.

The CJEU concluded that Article 25(2) of the Qualification Directive must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State bound by the Dublin III Regulation but not the recast APD, which considers an application for international protection inadmissible when the applicant benefits from subsidiary protection in another Member State.

The court recognised that although under Article 25(2)(b) and (c) of the Qualification Directive, a Member State may reject as inadmissible an application for international protection brought by a third-country national who benefits from protection deemed to be sufficient in a third country, in view of the context and the objectives pursued by the Common European Asylum System, Member States must be able to do the same where the applicant has already been granted subsidiary protection in another Member State. In concluding this, the court emphasized that the Dublin III Regulation is specifically aimed at preventing secondary movements of asylum applicants between Member States by establishing uniform mechanisms and criteria.