Registered under C-621/24 before the CJEU

An Afghan applicant entered Germany in August 2021 and his asylum application was deemed inadmissible as Romania claimed responsibility under the Dublin III Regulation, leading to an order for transfer. However, transfers to Romania were suspended due to the war in Ukraine. From January 2022, his cash benefits were revoked, and he received only in-kind support, based on § 1a(7) of the AsylbLG which applies to foreign nationals required to leave the country, specifically in cases related to the Dublin III Regulation. After the Würzburg Social Court dismissed his appeal for higher benefits, the Bavarian State Social Court upheld the onward appeal, declaring the restrictions unjustified. The district authority appealed this decision to the Federal Social Court.

The Federal Social Court determined that the applicant was not entitled to higher benefits during the disputed period but was eligible for benefits as a foreigner required to leave the country under § 1(1)5 of the AsylbLG. Regarding the benefits reduction, the court found that the criteria under § 1a(1) AsylbLG were not satisfied, as there was no evidence indicating that the applicant was at fault for not leaving the country. The failed transfer appointments were attributed to circumstances beyond his control. The court also ruled that benefit restrictions are limited to the period when the Dublin transfer is enforceable and if the transfer is interrupted, expired, or if the other Member State refuses the applicant, full basic benefits are reinstated without further decisions.

The court addressed whether the national benefits for applicants during the Dublin transfer comply with EU law, specifically Article 17(2) and (5) of the recast Reception Conditions Directive (RCD), which mandates adequate living conditions to ensure subsistence and the protection of physical and mental health, including provisions for accommodation, food, and clothing.

The court cited relevant jurisprudence of the CJEU, as its judgements in Federaal agentschap voor de opvang van asielzoekers (Belgium, Fedasil) v S. Saciri and Others (C-79/13, 27 February 2014), Zubair Haqbin v Belgium (C-233/18, 12 December 2019) and Abubacarr Jawo v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C‑163/17, 19 March 2019), which highlighted that material reception conditions must ensure a dignified standard of living, preventing extreme deprivation that hinders access to basic needs like shelter, food, and clothing. The Federal Social Court noted that the CJEU has not clarified whether an adequate standard of living under Articles 17(2) and 17(5) ensures that additional needs are met compared to the minimum requirements outlined in Article 20. The court also addressed whether Article 17(5) Sentence 2 of the recast RCD allows Member States to differentiate benefits for applicants based on a shorter expected stay. This could enable a reduced benefit level for up to six months during the Dublin transfer period, while other applicants receive higher benefits. Additionally, if the national benefit level is below the standards set by Articles 17(2) and 17(5) of the recast RCD, the court questions whether such limitations can be justified under Article 20(1)(c) of the recast RCD.

The court observed that the applicant's first asylum application in Germany in August 2021 was a follow-up to his earlier, implicitly withdrawn application in Romania. However, it remained unclear when the application in Romanian was withdrawn or whether a decision under Articles 27 or 28 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive (APD) was made, likely not until September 2021. This raised the question of whether the German application qualified as a subsequent application under Article 20(1)(c) of the recast RCD. If it did, then restrictions on benefits for food, accommodation, and care would meet the necessary requirements. If §7 of the AsylbLG fails to comply with Articles 17(2) and (5) of the recast RCD, or if restrictions under Article 20 are unmet, its application is not permissible, making the contested decision unlawful and leading to the dismissal of the present appeal.

The Federal Social Court submitted the following question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling:

"1. Does a provision of a Member State which grants applicants for international protection, depending on their status as persons required to leave the country within the transfer period under the Dublin III regulation, only a right to accommodation, food, personal and health care and treatment in the event of illness and, depending on the circumstances of the individual case, clothing and household durables and consumer goods, cover the minimum level described in Article 17(2) and (5) of the recast RCD?

Should question 1 be answered in the negative:

2. a) Is Article 20(1)(c) of the recast RCD in conjunction with Article 2(q) of the APD to be interpreted as meaning that a subsequent application also covers situations in which the applicant has previously lodged an application for international protection in another Member State and, on that basis, the BAMF has rejected the application as inadmissible under the Dublin III Regulation and ordered deportation?

(b) In determining whether this situation constitutes a subsequent application within the meaning of Article 2(q) of the recast APD, does the date of withdrawal or the date of a decision by the other Member State pursuant to Article 27 or Article 28 of the recast APD matter?

(c) Is the first sentence of Article 20(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 20(5) and (6) of the recast RCD in conjunction with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights to be interpreted as meaning that a restriction of the benefits granted as part of the reception to benefits to cover the need for food and accommodation, including heating, as well as personal and healthcare care and benefits in the event of illness and - depending on the individual case - for clothing and household consumer goods is permissible?"