CJEU: Ruling on the interpretation of Directive 2013/32 in determining the admissibility of international protection applications

On 13 November 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) published its ruling in the case of Federal Republic of Germany v Hamed and Omar (C-540/17 and C-541/17) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2013/32 in admissibility decisions.

The applicants, both Syrian nationals, were granted refugee status in Bulgaria prior to entering Germany. Their subsequent applications for international protection were rejected by the German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees on the basis of their refugee status in Bulgaria. This decision was overturned by the Federal Administrative Court due to the known systemic deficiencies in asylum procedures in Bulgaria and strong risk of inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The State appealed this decision and the German Federal Administrative Court referred to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling.

The question before the CJEU in both cases was whether Article 33(2) (a) of Directive 2013/32 precludes a Member State from ruling an application for international protection inadmissible because another member State had already grated protection status if the living conditions and procedures in said State would expose the applicant to a risk of inhuman treatment. 

The CJEU noted, in view of the absolute nature of Article 4, that an inadmissibility decision would not be justified if it was an established fact that humane treatment and adequate asylum procedures could not be guaranteed. Therefore, the CJEU concluded that Directive 2013/32 should be interpreted as precluding Member States from exercising the power to reject applications for international protection as inadmissible when an applicant has been granted protection status elsewhere if the living conditions and asylum procedures in that State would expose the applicant to serious risk of inhuman and degrading treatment.

Based on an unofficial translation by the EWLU team.

This item was reproduced with the permission of ECRE from the ELENA Weekly Legal Update. The purpose of these updates is to inform asylum lawyers and legal organizations supporting asylum seekers and refugees of recent developments in the field of asylum law. Please note that the information provided is taken from publicly available information on the internet. Every reasonable effort is made to make the content accurate and up to date at the time each item is pusexblished but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by ECRE.