# C_2021088EN.01001701.xml

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Cottbus (Germany) lodged on 24 December 2020 — RO, legally represented v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-720/20)

(2021/C 88/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Cottbus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RO, legally represented

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland, represented by the Bundesministerium des Innern, itself represented by the Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge

Questions referred

| 1. | In the light of the objective of EU law to avoid secondary movements and of the principle of family unity expressed in that regulation, must Article 20(3) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (1) be applied by analogy in a situation where a minor child and its parents lodge applications for international protection in the same Member State, but the parents already enjoy international protection in another Member State, whereas the child was born in the Member State in which it lodged the application for international protection? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the light of the objective of EU law to avoid secondary movements and of the principle of family unity expressed in that regulation, must Article 20(3) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (1) be applied by analogy in a situation where a minor child and its parents lodge applications for international protection in the same Member State, but the parents already enjoy international protection in another Member State, whereas the child was born in the Member State in which it lodged the application for international protection?

| 2. | If the question is answered in the affirmative, should the minor child’s application for asylum under Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 not be examined and should a transfer decision under Article 26 of the regulation be adopted, having regard to the fact that, for instance, the Member State in which that minor child’s parents enjoy international protection is responsible for examining the minor child’s application for international protection? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the question is answered in the affirmative, should the minor child’s application for asylum under Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 not be examined and should a transfer decision under Article 26 of the regulation be adopted, having regard to the fact that, for instance, the Member State in which that minor child’s parents enjoy international protection is responsible for examining the minor child’s application for international protection?

| 3. | If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, is Article 20(3) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 also applicable by analogy in so far as, under the second sentence thereof, it is not necessary to initiate a procedure for taking charge of a child born subsequently, despite the fact that there is then a risk that the host Member State has no knowledge of the possible need to take charge of the minor child or that, in accordance with its administrative practice, it refuses to apply Article 20(3) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 by analogy and, consequently, there is a risk that the minor child will become a ‘refugee in orbit’ (see BVerwG judgment of 23 June 2020-1 C 37.19; ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2020:230620U1C37.19.0)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, is Article 20(3) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 also applicable by analogy in so far as, under the second sentence thereof, it is not necessary to initiate a procedure for taking charge of a child born subsequently, despite the fact that there is then a risk that the host Member State has no knowledge of the possible need to take charge of the minor child or that, in accordance with its administrative practice, it refuses to apply Article 20(3) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 by analogy and, consequently, there is a risk that the minor child will become a ‘refugee in orbit’ (see BVerwG judgment of 23 June 2020-1 C 37.19; ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2020:230620U1C37.19.0)?

| 4. | If Questions 2 and 3 are answered in the negative, can a decision on inadmissibility under Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU (2) be adopted by analogy in respect of a minor child who has lodged an application for international protection in a Member State even if it is not the child itself but its parents who enjoy international protection in another Member State? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If Questions 2 and 3 are answered in the negative, can a decision on inadmissibility under Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU (2) be adopted by analogy in respect of a minor child who has lodged an application for international protection in a Member State even if it is not the child itself but its parents who enjoy international protection in another Member State?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast) (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).

(2)  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 (recast) (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).

---