The judgment concerns the interpretation of Article 20(3) of the Dublin III Regulation and Article 33(2)(a) of the Asylum Procedures Directive (recast).

A Russian minor born in Germany challenged the decision of the German authorities by which her application for international protection was rejected as inadmissible. The authorities had motivated this decision by the fact that the parents and siblings had already been granted protection before her birth in another Member State (Poland), and stated that according to the Dublin III Regulation, Poland should be responsible for examining this request.

The CJEU held that where the members of the family of an applicant already benefit from such protection in another Member State, the latter is not, according to the Dublin III Regulation, responsible for examining the application unless the interested parties have expressed their wish in writing. This condition cannot be set aside because the family has left the Member State which granted international protection and traveled irregularly to the Member State within which the minor submitted the application for international protection.

Where no such wish has been expressed in writing, and provided that no other Member State can be designated on the basis of the criteria listed in the Dublin III Regulation, it is the first Member State in which the application for international protection was submitted who is responsible for examining this request.

The CJEU also noted that under the Asylum Procedures Directive (recast) it is not possible to declare as inadmissible the application for international protection introduced by a minor due to the fact that the parents benefit from such protection in another Member State. The reason of inadmissibility due to protection having already been granted in another Member State is only permitted if the applicant already enjoys such protection.