- 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-202/23, Baabda and Others: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden (Germany) lodged on 28 March 2023 — M.E.O. v Federal Republic of Germany
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023CN0202
62023CN0202
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
24.7.2023
Official Journal of the European Union
C 261/4
(Case C-202/23, Baabda and Others (*) )
(2023/C 261/10)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: M.E.O.
Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
Questions referred
1.Is Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32/EU in conjunction with Article 2(q) thereof to be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State under which an application for international protection made in that Member State is to be rejected as inadmissible if the applicant previously made an application for international protection in another Member State and the procedure was discontinued by the other Member State because the applicant abandoned the application in that Member State?
2.If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative: Is Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32 in conjunction with Article 2(q) thereof to be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State under which an application for international protection made in that Member State is to be rejected as inadmissible if the applicant previously made an application for international protection in another Member State and the procedure was discontinued by the other Member State because the applicant abandoned the application in the other Member State, even though the asylum procedure in the other Member State can still be reopened by the other Member State if the applicant makes an application to that effect in the other Member State?
3.If Question 2 is to be answered in the affirmative: Does EU law stipulate what is the relevant date, in connection with the decision on an application for international protection, for determining whether an asylum procedure previously discontinued in another Member State can still be reopened or is this a matter governed solely by national law?
4.If Question 3 is to be answered to the effect that EU law does contain such stipulations: What is the relevant date under EU law, in connection with the decision on an application for international protection, for determining whether an asylum procedure previously discontinued in another Member State can still be reopened?
(*) The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.
(2) 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 (recast) (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).