# C_2023261EN.01000403.xml

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden (Germany) lodged on 28 March 2023 — M.E.O. v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-202/23, Baabda and Others (1))

(2023/C 261/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Minden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M.E.O.

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32/EU (2) in conjunction with Article 2(q) thereof to be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State under which an application for international protection made in that Member State is to be rejected as inadmissible if the applicant previously made an application for international protection in another Member State and the procedure was discontinued by the other Member State because the applicant abandoned the application in that Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32/EU (2) in conjunction with Article 2(q) thereof to be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State under which an application for international protection made in that Member State is to be rejected as inadmissible if the applicant previously made an application for international protection in another Member State and the procedure was discontinued by the other Member State because the applicant abandoned the application in that Member State?

| 2. | If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative:
  Is Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32 in conjunction with Article 2(q) thereof to be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State under which an application for international protection made in that Member State is to be rejected as inadmissible if the applicant previously made an application for international protection in another Member State and the procedure was discontinued by the other Member State because the applicant abandoned the application in the other Member State, even though the asylum procedure in the other Member State can still be reopened by the other Member State if the applicant makes an application to that effect in the other Member State? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative:

Is Article 33(2)(d) of Directive 2013/32 in conjunction with Article 2(q) thereof to be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State under which an application for international protection made in that Member State is to be rejected as inadmissible if the applicant previously made an application for international protection in another Member State and the procedure was discontinued by the other Member State because the applicant abandoned the application in the other Member State, even though the asylum procedure in the other Member State can still be reopened by the other Member State if the applicant makes an application to that effect in the other Member State?

| 3. | If Question 2 is to be answered in the affirmative:
  Does EU law stipulate what is the relevant date, in connection with the decision on an application for international protection, for determining whether an asylum procedure previously discontinued in another Member State can still be reopened or is this a matter governed solely by national law? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 2 is to be answered in the affirmative:

Does EU law stipulate what is the relevant date, in connection with the decision on an application for international protection, for determining whether an asylum procedure previously discontinued in another Member State can still be reopened or is this a matter governed solely by national law?

| 4. | If Question 3 is to be answered to the effect that EU law does contain such stipulations:
  What is the relevant date under EU law, in connection with the decision on an application for international protection, for determining whether an asylum procedure previously discontinued in another Member State can still be reopened? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If Question 3 is to be answered to the effect that EU law does contain such stipulations:

What is the relevant date under EU law, in connection with the decision on an application for international protection, for determining whether an asylum procedure previously discontinued in another Member State can still be reopened?

---

(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(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).

---