According to Aca-Europe the case referes to secondary movement of an alleged Eritrean applicant who was previously granted refugee status in Italy, being issued a residence permit and travel documents. 

"In 2011, he applied for recognition as a person entitled to political asylum in Germany. In 2013, the Italian Ministry of the Interior informed the Federal Police Headquarters of his readmission readiness. With decision of February 2013, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees ascertained that the plaintiff was not entitled to asylum because of his entry from a safe third country and ordered his deportation to Italy. The lawsuit was unsuccessful in the lower courts as far as the third country decision was concerned. The Higher Administrative Court has justified this with the fact that the plaintiff is not entitled to asylum, since he entered the country from a safe third country. The applicant had not invalidated the presumption of safety in the third country. In particular, in the case of deportation to Italy, there was no risk of treatment which would contradict Article 3 of the ECHR. The plaintiff's appeal is directed against this. According to the case law of the Senate, the inadmissibility of an asylum application governed in accordance with the prevailing legal basis in § 29, paragraph 1, No. 3 of the AsylG (Asylum Act), cannot constitute a legal basis for the contested decision because of the entry from a safe third country. The success of the appeal depends on whether the decision of inadmissibility can be reinterpreted as one pursuant to § 29, paragraph 1, No. 2 of the AsylG. It states that an asylum application is inadmissible if another EU member state has already granted international protection. In this case of a foreign refugee recognition, Article 25, paragraph 2, point a of Directive 2005/85/EC already authorised such a regulation. However, the Senate sees a need for clarification as to whether a decision of inadmissibility may also be taken if the living conditions for recognised refugees in the other member state do not meet the requirements of Articles 20 et seq. of Directive 2011/95/EU without violating Article 3 of the ECHR. The Senate also sees a need for clarification of the legal consequences of a hearing that was omitted in the administrative proceedings if, as was the case with the inadmissibility decision, it concerns a bound decision. The questions submitted are as follows: 1. Is a member state (here: Germany) prevented under the EU law from applying for international protection on the grounds of a refugee status in another member state (here: Italy) in the implementation of the authorisation in Article 33, paragraph 2, point a of Directive 2013/32/EU and/or of the previous provision in Article 25, paragraph 2, point a of Directive 2005/85/EC, if the arrangement of international protection, namely the living conditions for recognised refugees, in the other member state that has already granted international protection to the applicant (here: Italy), does not meet the requirements of Articles 20 et seq. of Directive 2011/95/EU without violating Article 4 of the GRC and/or Article 3 of the ECHR?

2. If question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: Does this also apply if recognised refugees in the member state that recognises the refugee (here: Italy) a) are granted no benefits, or benefits only to a very limited extent compared with other member states, provided that they are not treated differently from nationals of that member state? b) are granted rights under Article 20 et. seq. Directive 2011/95/EU, but have de facto more difficult access to the associated services, or have such services of family or civil society networks that replace or supplement state services? 3. Does Article 14, paragraph 1, sentence 1 of Directive 2013/32/EU or the previous provision in Article 12, paragraph 1, sentence 1 of Directive 2005/85/EC oppose the application of a national provision, according to which an omitted personal hearing of the applicant for the rejection of the asylum application deemed as inadmissible by the asylum authority when implementing the authorisation in Article 33, paragraph 2, point a of Directive 2013/32/EU or the previous provision in Article 25, paragraph 2, point a of Directive 2005/85/EC, does not lead to the annulment of this decision for lack of hearing if the applicant has the opportunity to present all the circumstances, which speak against an inadmissibility decision, in the appeal procedure and if, even taking this submission into account, no other decision can be taken on the merits?

The CJEU judgement was pronounced in the case Milkiyas Addis (Eritrea) on 16 July 2020.

Following the CJEU judgement, the Federal Administrative Court reopened the case and adopted a judgement on 30 March 2021.