4.9.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/4

(Case C-352/23, Changu (*) )

(2023/C 314/06)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LF

Defendant: Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite

Questions referred

1.Must recital 15, Article 2(h) and Article 3 of Directive 2011/95 (*) 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, be interpreted as allowing a Member State to introduce national legislation on the grant of international protection on the basis of compassionate or humanitarian grounds which bears no relation to the logic and spirit of Directive 2011/95 in accordance with recital 15 and Article 2(h) of Directive 2011/95 (another kind of protection), or must, in that case also, the possibility provided for in national law of granting protection on ‘humanitarian grounds’ be compatible with the standards of international protection under Article 3 of Directive 2011/95?

2.Do recital 12 and Article 14(2) of Directive 2008/115 (*) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, in conjunction with Articles 1 and 4 of the Charter, categorically compel a Member State to provide third-country nationals with written confirmation attesting that they are staying illegally but cannot yet be removed?

3.In the case of a national legal framework whose only provision on regularising the status of a third-country national on ‘humanitarian grounds’ is contained in Article 9(8) of the Zakon za ubezhishteto i bezhantsite (Law on Asylum and Refugees; ‘the ZUB’), is an interpretation of that national provision which bears no relation to the character and grounds of Directive 2011/95 compatible with recital 15 and Article 2(h) and Article 3 of Directive 2011/95?

4.Do Articles 1, 4 and 7 of the Charter require, for the purposes of the application of Directive 2011/95, an assessment of whether the fact that a third-country national has been staying in a Member State for a long time without a regularised status constitutes an independent reason for granting international protection on ‘compelling humanitarian grounds’?

5.Does the positive obligation of a Member State to ensure compliance with Articles 1 and 4 of the Charter allow a broad interpretation of the national measure envisaged in Article 9(8) of the ZUB that goes beyond the logic and standards of international protection as provided for in Directive 2011/95, and does it call for an interpretation that is consistent exclusively with the observance of the absolute fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 1 and 4 of the Charter?

6.Is the fact of not granting the protection provided for in Article 9(8) of the ZUB to a third-country national in the applicant’s situation capable of constituting a failure by the Member State to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1, 4 and 7 of the Charter?

* The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9.

OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.