Bundesrepublik Deutschland gegen Adel Hamed (C‑540/17), Amar Omar (C‑541/17) (Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung)
| Publisher | European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union |
| Publication Date | 13 November 2019 |
| Citation / Document Symbol | ECLI:EU:C:2019:964 |
| Other Languages / Attachments | Decision in French | Decision in German |
| Cite as | Bundesrepublik Deutschland gegen Adel Hamed (C‑540/17), Amar Omar (C‑541/17) (Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung), ECLI:EU:C:2019:964, European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union, 13 November 2019, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,ECJ,5dea6c644.html [accessed 7 November 2021] |
| Disclaimer | This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States. |
CJEU: Ruling on the interpretation of Directive 2013/32 in determining the admissibility of international protection applications
On 13 November 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) published its ruling in the case of Federal Republic of Germany v Hamed and Omar (C-540/17 and C-541/17) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2013/32 in admissibility decisions.
The applicants, both Syrian nationals, were granted refugee status in Bulgaria prior to entering Germany. Their subsequent applications for international protection were rejected by the German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees on the basis of their refugee status in Bulgaria. This decision was overturned by the Federal Administrative Court due to the known systemic deficiencies in asylum procedures in Bulgaria and strong risk of inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The State appealed this decision and the German Federal Administrative Court referred to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling.
The question before the CJEU in both cases was whether Article 33(2) (a) of Directive 2013/32 precludes a Member State from ruling an application for international protection inadmissible because another member State had already grated protection status even if the living conditions and procedures in said State would expose the applicant to a risk of inhuman treatment.
The CJEU noted, in view of the absolute nature of Article 4, that an inadmissibility decision would not be justified if it was an established fact that humane treatment and adequate asylum procedures could not be guaranteed. Therefore, the CJEU concluded that Directive 2013/32 should be interpreted as precluding Member States from exercising the power to reject applications for international protection as inadmissible when an applicant has been granted protection status elsewhere if the living conditions and asylum procedures in that State would expose the applicant to serious risk of inhuman and degrading treatment.
Based on an unofficial translation by the EWLU team. ELENA Weekly Legal Update - 6 December 2019
