# C_2022011EN.01001401.xml

| 10.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 14 September 2021 — BU v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-564/21)

(2022/C 11/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BU

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany, represented by the Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge

Questions referred

| 1. | Does it follow from the right to a fair trial under Article 47 of the Charter that the administrative file to be submitted by the authority in the context of an inspection of files or a judicial review is to be submitted in such a way — even where it is in electronic form — that it is complete and paginated, and changes are therefore traceable? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does it follow from the right to a fair trial under Article 47 of the Charter that the administrative file to be submitted by the authority in the context of an inspection of files or a judicial review is to be submitted in such a way — even where it is in electronic form — that it is complete and paginated, and changes are therefore traceable?

| 2. | Do Articles 23(1) and 46(1) to (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 (1) preclude a national administrative practice according to which, as a general rule, the authority provides the asylum seeker’s legal representative and the court with only an extract taken from an electronic document management system and containing an incomplete, unstructured and non-chronological collection of electronic PDF files, whereby the latter do not have a structure or set out the sequence of events in chronological order, let alone reflect the complete content of the electronic file. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do Articles 23(1) and 46(1) to (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 (1) preclude a national administrative practice according to which, as a general rule, the authority provides the asylum seeker’s legal representative and the court with only an extract taken from an electronic document management system and containing an incomplete, unstructured and non-chronological collection of electronic PDF files, whereby the latter do not have a structure or set out the sequence of events in chronological order, let alone reflect the complete content of the electronic file.

| 3. | Does it follow from Articles 11(1) and 45(1)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU that a decision must be signed by hand by the decision-maker of the determining authority, kept on file or served on the applicant also as a document signed by hand? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does it follow from Articles 11(1) and 45(1)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU that a decision must be signed by hand by the decision-maker of the determining authority, kept on file or served on the applicant also as a document signed by hand?

| 4. | Is the handwritten form within the meaning of Articles 11(1) and 45(1)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU respected where the decision is signed by the decision-maker but then scanned and the original destroyed, that is to say, the decision exists in writing only to a certain extent? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the handwritten form within the meaning of Articles 11(1) and 45(1)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU respected where the decision is signed by the decision-maker but then scanned and the original destroyed, that is to say, the decision exists in writing only to a certain extent?

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60.

---