Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62022CN0364

    Case C-364/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden (Germany) lodged on 7 June 2022 — J.B., S.B. and F.B. v Federal Republic of Germany

    OJ C 340, 5.9.2022, p. 19–19 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    5.9.2022   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 340/19

    Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden (Germany) lodged on 7 June 2022 — J.B., S.B. and F.B. v Federal Republic of Germany

    (Case C-364/22)

    (2022/C 340/24)

    Language of the case: German

    Referring court

    Verwaltungsgericht Minden

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicants: J.B., S.B., F.B.

    Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

    Questions referred

    1.

    Must Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) 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?

    (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).

    Top