15.11.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/8

(Case C-768/19)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common policy on asylum and subsidiary protection - Directive 2011/95/EU - Third indent of Article 2(j) - Definition of ‘family member’ - Adult applying for international protection because of that adult’s family relationship with a minor who has already obtained subsidiary protection - Relevant date for assessing ‘minor’ status)

(2021/C 462/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany

Defendant: SE

Interested party: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgerich

Operative part of the judgment

1.The third indent of Article 2(j) 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 meaning that when an asylum seeker, who has entered the territory of the host Member State where that asylum seeker’s minor unmarried child is present, is seeking to derive from the subsidiary protection status obtained by that child the right to asylum under that Member State’s legislation granting such a right to persons falling within the third indent of Article 2(j) of Directive 2011/95, the relevant date for assessing whether the beneficiary of that protection is a ‘minor’, within the meaning of that provision, in order to determine the application for international protection brought by that asylum seeker, is the date on which the latter lodged, as the case may be informally, his or her application for asylum.

2.The third indent of Article 2(j) of Directive 2011/95, read in conjunction with Article 23(2) of that directive and Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that the definition of ‘family member’ does not require the actual resumption of family life between the parent of the beneficiary of international protection and his or her child.

3.The third indent of Article 2(j) of Directive 2011/95, read in conjunction with Article 23(2) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the rights that the family members of a beneficiary of subsidiary protection derive from the subsidiary protection status obtained by their child, in particular the advantages referred to in Articles 24 to 35 of that directive, persist after that beneficiary reaches the age of majority for the duration of the period of validity of the residence permit granted to them in accordance with Article 24(2) of that directive.

(1) OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.