# C_2022171EN.01001801.xml

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 4 February 2022 — M.A. v Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnyba

(Case C-72/22)

(2022/C 171/23)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: M.A.

Other party to the appeal proceedings: Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnyba

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 7(1) of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) 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 4(1) of Directive 2011/95/EU (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13. December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, be interpreted as precluding rules of national law, such as those applicable in the present case, which, in the event of a declaration of martial law, a state of emergency or also a declaration of an emergency due to a mass influx of foreigners, do not in principle allow a foreigner who has entered and remains unlawfully in the territory of a Member State to lodge an application for international protection? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 7(1) of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) 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 4(1) of Directive 2011/95/EU (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13. December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, be interpreted as precluding rules of national law, such as those applicable in the present case, which, in the event of a declaration of martial law, a state of emergency or also a declaration of an emergency due to a mass influx of foreigners, do not in principle allow a foreigner who has entered and remains unlawfully in the territory of a Member State to lodge an application for international protection?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: must Article 8(2) and (3) of Directive 2013/33/EU (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection be interpreted as precluding rules of national law under which, in the event of a declaration of martial law, a state of emergency or also a declaration of an emergency due to a mass influx of foreigners, an asylum applicant may be detained merely because he or she entered the territory of the Republic of Lithuania by crossing the State border of the Republic of Lithuania unlawfully? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: must Article 8(2) and (3) of Directive 2013/33/EU (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection be interpreted as precluding rules of national law under which, in the event of a declaration of martial law, a state of emergency or also a declaration of an emergency due to a mass influx of foreigners, an asylum applicant may be detained merely because he or she entered the territory of the Republic of Lithuania by crossing the State border of the Republic of Lithuania unlawfully?

---

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

(2)  OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9.

(3)  OJ 2013 L 180, p. 96.

---