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-349/24, Nuratau: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Brně (Czech Republic) lodged on 13 May 2024 – A.B. v Ministerstvo vnitra, Odbor azylové a migrační politiky

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024CN0349

62024CN0349

May 13, 2024
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

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

C/2024/5073

26.8.2024

(Case C-349/24, Nuratau

(C/2024/5073)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A.B.

Defendant: Ministerstvo vnitra, Odbor azylové a migrační politiky

Question referred

Must Article 3 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 (recast) be interpreted as meaning that the legislation of a Member State permitting the granting of subsidiary protection to an applicant seeking international protection may be considered a more favourable standard for determining the persons eligible for subsidiary protection, as defined in that provision, including in the case of a real threat of a type of serious harm that is not recognised by Article 15 of the Directive, which consists in the fact that the departure from the Member State of the applicant seeking international protection would be contrary to the international obligations of that Member State, provided that that infringement of the Member State’s international obligations relates to the situation in the country of origin of the applicant seeking international protection?

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.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5073/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

* * *

Language of the case: Czech

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