- 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-216/22, Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Admissibility of a subsequent application): Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 February 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen – Germany) – A.A. v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection – Directive 2013/32/EU – Article 33(2)(d) and Article 40(2) and (3) – Subsequent application – Conditions for rejecting such an application as inadmissible – Concept of ‘new elements or findings’ – Judgment of the Court on a question of interpretation of EU law – Article 46 – Right to an effective remedy – Jurisdiction of the national court or tribunal to rule on such an application on the merits in the event of illegality of the decision rejecting an application as inadmissible – Procedural safeguards – Article 14(2))
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022CA0216
62022CA0216
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
C series
—
C/2024/2274
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 February 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen — Germany) — A.A. v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(Case C-216/22, (1) Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Admissibility of a subsequent application))
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 33(2)(d) and Article 40(2) and (3) - Subsequent application - Conditions for rejecting such an application as inadmissible - Concept of ‘new elements or findings’ - Judgment of the Court on a question of interpretation of EU law - Article 46 - Right to an effective remedy - Jurisdiction of the national court or tribunal to rule on such an application on the merits in the event of illegality of the decision rejecting an application as inadmissible - Procedural safeguards - Article 14(2))
(C/2024/2274)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: A.A.
Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 33(2)(d) and Article 40(2) and (3) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that any judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, including a judgment which is limited to interpreting a provision of EU law already in force at the time that a decision on a previous application was adopted, constitutes a new element, within the meaning of those provisions, irrespective of the date on which it was delivered, if it significantly adds to the likelihood of the applicant qualifying as a beneficiary of international protection.
2.Article 46(1)(a)(ii) of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as allowing — but not requiring — Member States to authorise their courts or tribunals, where those courts or tribunals annul a decision rejecting a subsequent application as inadmissible, to rule themselves on that application, without having to refer the examination of that application back to the determining authority, provided that those courts comply with the safeguards provided for by the provisions of Chapter II of that directive.
—
(1) OJ C 244, 27.6.2022.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2274/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—