- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-921/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats ‘s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — LH v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Border controls, asylum and immigration — Asylum policy — Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 40(2) — Subsequent application — New elements or findings — Concept — Documents the authenticity of which cannot be established or the source of which cannot be objectively verified — Directive 2011/95/EU — Article 4(1) and (2) — Assessment of the evidence — Obligation of the Member State concerned to cooperate)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CA0921
62019CA0921
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
26.7.2021
Official Journal of the European Union
C 297/10
(Case C-921/19)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Border controls, asylum and immigration - Asylum policy - Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 40(2) - Subsequent application - New elements or findings - Concept - Documents the authenticity of which cannot be established or the source of which cannot be objectively verified - Directive 2011/95/EU - Article 4(1) and (2) - Assessment of the evidence - Obligation of the Member State concerned to cooperate)
(2021/C 297/08)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: LH
Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 40(2) of 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, read in conjunction with Article 4(2) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which any document submitted by an applicant for international protection in support of a subsequent application is automatically considered not to constitute a ‘new element or finding’, within the meaning of that provision, when the authenticity of that document cannot be established or its source objectively verified;
2.Article 40 of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 2011/95, must be interpreted as meaning, first, that the assessment of the evidence submitted in support of an application for international protection cannot vary according to whether the application is a first application or a subsequent application and, second, that a Member State is required to cooperate with an applicant for the purpose of assessing the relevant elements of his or her subsequent application, when that applicant submits, in support of that application, documents the authenticity of which cannot be established.
(1) OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.