The CJEU ruled on the question of whether Articles 20 and 23 of the recast Qualification Directive (QD) must be interpreted as obliging Member States to grant the parent of a child recognized as a refugee in a Member State, who is a "family member" within the meaning of Article 2(j) of the recast QD, a right to international protection in that Member State.

The procedure was based on the appeal of the applicant, a Guinean national who came to Belgium in 2018 with three children, one of whom was granted international protection, against the CGRS, against the rejection of an application for international protection. The family ties existed previously in their country of origin. The applicant claimed that Article 23 of the QD had direct effect in the absence of timely implementation into Belgian law and therefore obliged Belgium to grant international protection derived from the protection status of her child.

The Council of State, as referring court, expressed doubts and stated that the best interests of the child could also be achieved if the mother was granted a residence permit in Belgium.

The CJEU upheld the reasoning of the Council of State and ruled that, regardless of whether Article 23 of the QD was correctly implemented, applicant was not to be granted international protection as she herself did not meet the conditions for international protection. The CJEU referred to its previous case law, Nigyar Raul Kaza Ahmedbekova and Raul Emin Ogla Ahmedbekov v Deputy Chair of the State Agency for Refugees (Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite), C-652/16, 4 October 2018 and LW v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, C-91/20, 9 November 2021 and held that the recast QD did not provide for a derogation of international or subsidiary protection to family members who did not themselves meet the conditions for such a status. For the same reasons, Article 20 of the recast QD could not be interpreted as obliging Member States to grant refugee status to the parent of a minor child enjoying international protection.

Based on the above, the CJEU answered the preliminary question insofar that Articles 20 and 23 of the recast QD had to be interpreted as not obliging Member States to derive a right to international protection to a parent from their minor child.