Identification of the case
Fundamental rights involved
- Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (art. 4 CFREU)
- Right to asylum (art. 18 CFREU)
National law sources
- Paragraphs 26a, 29 Abs. 1 No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, 34ª Asylum Law
EU law sources
- Articles 2, 5 para. 2, 10 para. 1, 23 para 2, 37, 49 para. 2 Dublin III Regulation
Summary of the case
Facts of the caseThe applicant is a stateless Palestinian from Syria who applied for asylum in Germany on 29 November 2013, after having been granted subsidiary protection in Bulgaria. The Federal Agency of Migration and Refugees (Federal Agency) requested Bulgaria to take back the applicant. The request was denied, arguing that due to the granting of subsidiary protection, the provisions of the Dublin III Regulation on taking back an applicant were not applicable. The Federal Agency - without examining the merits of the case - declared that the applicant was not entitled to asylum and ordered his deportation to Bulgaria. The Administrative Court Trier denied the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Federal Agency. The Rheinland-Pfalz Higher Administrative Court cancelled the deportation order, but dismissed the remainder of the appeal. It argued the applicant had entered Germany through a safe third country (Austria). The Federal Administrative Court stayed the proceedings and made a reference to the CJEU.
Type of enforcement
Measures, actions, remedies claimed/appliedAnnulment of the administrative decision.
Reasoning (legal principles applied)The Federal Administrative Court made a reference for a preliminary ruling of the CJEU, posing several questions on the interpretation of the Dublin III Regulation. It asked inter alia whether a Member State would be prevented from denying a request for international protection as inadmissible if the applicant requests international protection after having been granted subsidiary protection in another Member State, if the asylum procedure in that Member State suffers from systemic deficiencies and/or the living conditions for a person that has been granted subsidiary protection contravene Article 4 CFREU/Article 3 ECHR or do not suffice the requirements of Articles 20 et seqq. Of Directive 2011/95/EU.
Role of the Charter and role of the general principles on enforcement
Relation to scope of the CharterThe Federal Administrative Court asked in its preliminary reference whether a Member State would be prevented from denying a request for international protection as inadmissible if the applicant requests international protection after having been granted subsidiary protection in another Member State, if the living conditions for a person that has been granted subsidiary protection contravene Article 4 CFREU.
Elements of judicial dialogue
Judicial dialogue patterns
Vertical dialogue type
- Direct dialogue between CJEU and National court (preliminary reference)
- Dialogue between high court - lower instance court at national level
Additional notes on the decision