Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
02/03/2022
DE: The Regional Administrative Court of Minden referred questions for preliminary ruling before the CJEU on interpretation of Article 33(2)(d) of the recast APD

ECLI
Input Provided By
EUAA Information and Analysis Sector (IAS)
Other Source/Information
Type
Referral for a preliminary ruling
Original Documents
Relevant Legislative Provisions
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], J.B. S.B. F.B. (Lebanon) v Federal Republic of Germany, 02 March 2022. 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=2714
Case history

European Union, Court of Justice of the European Union [CJEU], J.B., S.B., F.B. v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany), C-364/22, ECLI:EU:C:2023:429, 25 May 2023. Link redirects to the English summary in the EUAA Case Law Database.

Other information
Abstract

Case registered before the CJEU under C-364/22:


The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling:


1. Must Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32/EU be interpreted as precluding a national rule under which a further application for international protection must be refused as inadmissible irrespective of whether the applicant concerned returned to his or her country of origin after an application for international protection was rejected and before a further application for international protection was made?


2. In the context of the answer to Question 1, does it make any difference whether the applicant concerned was removed to his or her country of origin or returned there voluntarily?


3. Must Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32/EU be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing a further application for international protection as inadmissible where, although a decision on the granting of subsidiary protection status was not taken by way of the decision on the earlier application, grounds preventing removal were examined, and that examination is comparable in substance to the examination as to the granting of subsidiary protection status?


4. Are the examination of grounds preventing removal and the examination as to the granting of subsidiary protection status comparable where, in the examination of grounds preventing removal, it was necessary cumulatively to examine whether, in the country to which the applicant concerned is to be removed, he or she faces:


(a) a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;


(b) a risk of being subjected to the death penalty or execution;


(c) a risk of being the subject of an infringement of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights – ECHR);


or (d) a real and significant threat to his or her life and limb or freedom; or whether he or she (e) is exposed, as a member of the civilian population, to a significant individual threat to life or limb in the context of an international or internal armed conflict?


Country of Decision
Germany
Court Name
DE: Regional Administrative Court [Verwaltungsgericht]
Case Number
Date of Decision
02/03/2022
Country of Origin
Keywords
Asylum Procedures/Special Procedures
Return/Removal/Deportation
Subsequent Application
Subsidiary Protection