Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content

​​

14/12/2020
DE: Regional Administrative Court refers a case to the CJEU seeking interpretation of the Dublin III Regulation and family unity in the context of secondary movement
14/12/2020
DE: Regional Administrative Court refers a case to the CJEU seeking interpretation of the Dublin III Regulation and family unity in the context of secondary movement

ECLI
Input Provided By
EUAA Information and Analysis Sector (IAS)
Type
Referral for a preliminary ruling
Original Documents
Relevant Legislative Provisions
Dublin Regulation III (Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for IP); EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (EU Charter); Recast Asylum Procedures Directive (Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection) (recast APD) and/or APD 2005/85/CE
Reference
Germany, Regional Administrative Court [Verwaltungsgericht], RO v Federal Republic of Germany, 14 December 2020. Link redirects to the English summary in the EUAA Case Law Database.
Permanent link to the case
https://caselaw.euaa.europa.eu/pages/viewcaselaw.aspx?CaseLawID=1840
Case history
Other information
Abstract

According to the referral submitted to the CJEU and registered under C-720/20:


"In the light of the objective of EU law to avoid secondary movements and of the principle of family unity expressed in that regulation, must Article 20(3) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 be applied by analogy in a situation where a minor child and its parents lodge applications for international protection in the same Member State, but the parents already enjoy international protection in another Member State, whereas the child was born in the Member State in which it lodged the application for international protection?


If the question is answered in the affirmative, should the minor child’s application for asylum under Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 not be examined and should a transfer decision under Article 26 of the regulation be adopted, having regard to the fact that, for instance, the Member State in which that minor child’s parents enjoy international protection is responsible for examining the minor child’s application for international protection?


If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, is Article 20(3) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 also applicable by analogy in so far as, under the second sentence thereof, it is not necessary to initiate a procedure for taking charge of a child born subsequently, despite the fact that there is then a risk that the host Member State has no knowledge of the possible need to take charge of the minor child or that, in accordance with its administrative practice, it refuses to apply Article 20(3) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 by analogy and, consequently, there is a risk that the minor child will become a ‘refugee in orbit’ (see BVerwG judgment of 23 June 2020-1 C 37.19; ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2020:230620U1C37.19.0)?


If Questions 2 and 3 are answered in the negative, can a decision on inadmissibility under Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU 2 be adopted by analogy in respect of a minor child who has lodged an application for international protection in a Member State even if it is not the child itself but its parents who enjoy international protection in another Member State?"


Country of Decision
Germany
Court Name
DE: Regional Administrative Court [Verwaltungsgericht]
Case Number
Date of Decision
14/12/2020
Country of Origin
Keywords
Asylum Procedures/Special Procedures
Dublin procedure
Family life/family unity
Minor / Best interests of the child
Refugee Protection
Return/Removal/Deportation
Secondary movements
Source
CURIA
Other Source/Information
Curia
RETURN