Registered before the CJEU under case no C-153/21

The applicants, Syrian nationals, applied for international protection jointly with her partner and for their children and an EURODAC check revealed that they applied and were granted protection in Greece in 2018. Following interviews, their applications were rejected as inadmissible and their readmission to Greece was accepted by the latter in February 2020 and a return order was issued on 13 February 2020.

The applicants contested the return order, and the administrative tribunal rejected the request, except for the application for international protection of one child, who was a newborn in Greece. For the minor, the authorities in Luxembourg received reassurances that upon arrival in Greece, he will receive a residence permit granting the same benefits at the other family members who were already beneficiaries of international protection in Greece.  Consequently, the application of the child was also rejected as inadmissible as he would be granted refugee protection in Greece. The applicants appealed against the inadmissibility decision in the name of the child claiming that actually the child will be an applicant for international protection in Greece and not a beneficiary of protection, and his return would be contrary to the Dublin III Regulation, Article 21 (1).

At the oral hearing the applicants alleged having experienced violence against them from private actors in Greece, lacked accommodation and medical assistance for the child who was diagnosed with cancer. They moved to Luxembourg where the child receives adequate medical treatment and underwent a surgery. The applicants appealed on grounds related to alleged systemic deficiencies in the asylum and reception systems and the contested decision is contrary to the EU Charter, Article 24 and Article 3 ECHR.

The Administrative Tribunal mentioned that in a similar case from Germany, the Administrative Court, by judgement of 14 December 2020, referred a case for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU, registered as case No C-720/20, with 4 questions, out of which one is as follows: “a minor child who lodged an application for international protection in a Member State can have his application rejected as inadmissible due to the application, by analogy, of the revised Asylum Procedures Directive, Article 33, par. 2 let. A) even if it is not the child himself but the parents who are beneficiaries of international protection in another Member State?” Contrary to the German authorities which took a decision based on the Dublin III Regulation, the authorities in Luxembourg adopted, in the abovementioned case, an inadmissible decision on the application for international protection of the minor child based on the national dispositions transposing the provisions of the revised APD, Article 33 (2) a).

In the present case, the Greek authorities gave assurances that in principle the child would benefit, upon arrival in Greece, of same advantages as those granted international protection, namely his parents, brothers and sisters, who have refugee status there. Since the minister based its inadmissible decision on the fact that the child would have benefits related to this status, then the tribunal in Luxembourg questioned the meaning of the phrase “international protections has been granted” as provided by Article 33 (2) a) of the APD, read in conjunction with Article 23 of the Qualification Directive concerning the maintenance of family unity and Article 24 of the EU Charter.

The case was referred for a preliminary ruling before the CJEU with the following question:

“Can Article 33(2)(a) of the revised Asylum Procedures Directive, read in conjunction with Article 23 of revised Qualification Directive and with Article 24 of the EU Charter, be interpreted as permitting a declaration of inadmissibility in respect of an application for international protection made by the parents of a minor, in the name and on behalf of that minor, in a Member State (in this case Luxembourg) other than that which has previously granted international protection to the parents, brothers and sisters of the child, but not to the child himself (in this case Greece), on the ground that the authorities of the country which granted international protection to the parents, brothers and sisters, prior to their departure from that country and prior to the birth of the child, have guaranteed that, on arrival of the child and return of the other family members, the child will be granted a residence permit and will have the same benefits available to him as are granted to beneficiaries of international protection, though without stating that he will be granted international protection in his own right?”