# C_2023035EN.01001401.xml

| 30.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden — Germany) — BU v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-564/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Fundamental rights - Right to an effective remedy - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Asylum policy - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 11(1), Article 23(1) and Article 46(1) and (3) - Access to information in the applicant’s file - Completeness of the file - Metadata - Communication of that file in the form of individual unstructured electronic files - Information in writing - Digitised copy of the decision with a handwritten signature - Keeping of the electronic file without archiving a paper file)

(2023/C 35/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BU

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 23(1) and Article 46(1) 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, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
  must be interpreted as meaning that:
  they do not preclude a national administrative practice whereby the administrative authority which has decided on an application for international protection provides the applicant’s representative with a copy of the electronic file relating to that application in the form of a series of separate files in PDF (Portable Document Format) format, without consecutive page numbering, and the structure of which can be viewed by means of free software readily accessible on the internet, provided, first, that that method of disclosure guarantees access to all the information in the file relevant to the applicant’s defence, and on the basis of which the decision on that application was taken, and that, secondly, that that method of communication offers as faithful a representation as possible of the structure and chronology of that file, subject to cases where public interest objectives prevent the disclosure of certain information to the applicant’s representative. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 23(1) and Article 46(1) 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, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as meaning that:

they do not preclude a national administrative practice whereby the administrative authority which has decided on an application for international protection provides the applicant’s representative with a copy of the electronic file relating to that application in the form of a series of separate files in PDF (Portable Document Format) format, without consecutive page numbering, and the structure of which can be viewed by means of free software readily accessible on the internet, provided, first, that that method of disclosure guarantees access to all the information in the file relevant to the applicant’s defence, and on the basis of which the decision on that application was taken, and that, secondly, that that method of communication offers as faithful a representation as possible of the structure and chronology of that file, subject to cases where public interest objectives prevent the disclosure of certain information to the applicant’s representative.

| 2. | Article 11(1) of Directive 2013/32
  must be interpreted as meaning that:
  a decision on an application for international protection does not need to be signed by the official of the competent authority who took that decision in order for it to be considered to be communicated in writing within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 11(1) of Directive 2013/32

must be interpreted as meaning that:

a decision on an application for international protection does not need to be signed by the official of the competent authority who took that decision in order for it to be considered to be communicated in writing within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 11, 10.1.2022.

---