EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017CN0297
Case C-297/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 23 May 2017 — Ibrahim Bashar v Federal Republic of Germany
Case C-297/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 23 May 2017 — Ibrahim Bashar v Federal Republic of Germany
Case C-297/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 23 May 2017 — Ibrahim Bashar v Federal Republic of Germany
OJ C 309, 18.9.2017, p. 20–21
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
18.9.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 309/20 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 23 May 2017 — Ibrahim Bashar v Federal Republic of Germany
(Case C-297/17)
(2017/C 309/26)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Bundesverwaltungsgericht
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Ibrahim Bashar
Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
Questions referred
1. |
Does the transitional provision contained in the first paragraph of Article 52 of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) preclude the application of national legislation which, in transposition of the power conferred in Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU, which is more extensive than that conferred in the directive that preceded it, provides that an application for international protection is inadmissible if the applicant has been granted subsidiary protection in another Member State, in so far as the national legislation, in the absence of any national transitional provisions, is applicable even to applications lodged before 20 July 2015? In particular, does the transitional provision contained in the first paragraph of Article 52 of Directive 2013/32/EU allow the Member States, in particular, to transpose the extended power conferred in Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU retroactively, with the result that even applications which were lodged before that extended power was transposed into national law but which were not yet the subject of a final decision at the time of transposition are inadmissible? |
2. |
Does Article 33 of Directive 2013/32/EU confer on the Member States a right to choose whether to reject an application for asylum as inadmissible either on the ground that responsibility lies with another Member State (the Dublin Regulation) or under Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU? |
3. |
If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, does EU law prevent a Member State from rejecting an application for international protection as inadmissible on the ground that subsidiary protection has been granted in another Member State, in transposition of Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU, where
|
4. |
If Question 3b is to be answered in the affirmative, is this also the case where, although the persons benefiting from subsidiary protection do not receive any subsistence benefits at all or those which they do receive are very limited by comparison with those available in other Member States, they are to this extent not treated any differently from nationals of that Member State? |
5. |
If Question 2 is answered in the negative:
|
(1) Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).