EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

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

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022CN0364

62022CN0364

June 7, 2022
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

5.9.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/19

(Case C-364/22)

(2022/C 340/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

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).

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia