# C_2023252EN.01000902.xml

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden — Germany) — J.B., S.B., F.B., legally represented by J.B. and S.B., v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-364/22, (1) Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Voluntary return))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Asylum policy - Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 33(2)(d) - Procedure for examining an application for international protection - Inadmissible applications - Subsequent application - Voluntary return and removal)

(2023/C 252/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Minden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: J.B., S.B., F.B., legally represented by J.B. and S.B.,

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 33(2)(d) 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
  must be interpreted as not precluding the rejection of a subsequent application for international protection as inadmissible irrespective of (i) the fact that the applicant returned to his or her country of origin after his or her application for international protection was refused and before he or she made that subsequent application for international protection and (ii) whether that return was voluntary or forced. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 33(2)(d) 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

must be interpreted as not precluding the rejection of a subsequent application for international protection as inadmissible irrespective of (i) the fact that the applicant returned to his or her country of origin after his or her application for international protection was refused and before he or she made that subsequent application for international protection and (ii) whether that return was voluntary or forced.

| 2. | Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32
  must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from rejecting a subsequent application for international protection as inadmissible where the decision on the previous application did not concern the granting of subsidiary protection status, but was adopted following an examination of the existence of grounds prohibiting removal and that examination is comparable, in substance, to the examination carried out with a view to granting that status. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32

must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from rejecting a subsequent application for international protection as inadmissible where the decision on the previous application did not concern the granting of subsidiary protection status, but was adopted following an examination of the existence of grounds prohibiting removal and that examination is comparable, in substance, to the examination carried out with a view to granting that status.

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 5.9.2022.

---