This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014CA0560
Case C-560/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — M v Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, Attorney General (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2004/83/EC — Minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees — Application for subsidiary protection — Lawfulness of the national procedure for examining an application for subsidiary protection made after the rejection of an application for refugee status — Right to be heard — Scope — Right to an interview — Right to call and cross-examine witnesses)
Case C-560/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — M v Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, Attorney General (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2004/83/EC — Minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees — Application for subsidiary protection — Lawfulness of the national procedure for examining an application for subsidiary protection made after the rejection of an application for refugee status — Right to be heard — Scope — Right to an interview — Right to call and cross-examine witnesses)
Case C-560/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — M v Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, Attorney General (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2004/83/EC — Minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees — Application for subsidiary protection — Lawfulness of the national procedure for examining an application for subsidiary protection made after the rejection of an application for refugee status — Right to be heard — Scope — Right to an interview — Right to call and cross-examine witnesses)
IO C 104, 3.4.2017, p. 11–11
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
3.4.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 104/11 |
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — M v Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, Attorney General
(Case C-560/14) (1)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees - Application for subsidiary protection - Lawfulness of the national procedure for examining an application for subsidiary protection made after the rejection of an application for refugee status - Right to be heard - Scope - Right to an interview - Right to call and cross-examine witnesses))
(2017/C 104/17)
Language of the case: English
Referring court
Supreme Court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: M
Defendants: Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, Attorney General
Operative part of the judgment
The right to be heard, as applicable in the context of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, does not require, as a rule, that, where national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, provides for two separate procedures, one after the other, for examining applications for refugee status and applications for subsidiary protection respectively, the applicant for subsidiary protection is to have the right to an interview relating to his application and the right to call or cross-examine witnesses when that interview takes place.
An interview must nonetheless be arranged where specific circumstances, relating to the elements available to the competent authority or to the personal or general circumstances in which the application for subsidiary protection has been made, render it necessary in order to examine that application with full knowledge of the facts, a matter which is for the referring court to establish.