Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2022:219
Date: 2022-03-24
Language of the case: German
Subject matter: Asylum policy;Area of freedom, security and justice;Border checks
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling;Reference for a preliminary ruling - decision unnecessary
Origin: Germany

Anonymised version 
Translation C-720/20 – 1 
Case C-720/20 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
24 December 2020 
Referring court: 
Verwaltungsgericht Cottbus (Germany) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
14 December 2020 
Applicant: 
RO, legally represented 
Defendant: 
Federal Republic of Germany 
      
[…] 
VERWALTUNGSGERICHT COTTBUS (Administrative Court, Cottbus, 
Germany) 
DECISION 
[…] 
In the administrative court proceedings 
RO, [legally] represented, 
applicant, 
[…] 
v 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 12. 2020 – CASE C-720/20 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
Federal Republic of Germany, […] 
defendant, 
concerning: Right to asylum 
the 5th Chamber  
on 14 December 2020 
[…] 
made the following order: 
The proceedings are stayed. 
The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU: [Or. 2] 
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 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[?] 
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’ […]? 
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 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 
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
its parents who enjoy international protection in another Member State? 
[Or. 3] 
Reasons 
The applicant was born in Germany on 21 December 2015. She is a national of the 
Russian Federation. The applicant’s parents and her five siblings, some of whom 
are minors, are also nationals of the Russian Federation. The parents and the five 
siblings enjoy refugee protection in Poland. Protection in Poland was granted on 
19 March 2012. In December 2012, the parents left Poland and travelled to 
Germany. They lodged applications for asylum there. The Polish authorities 
refused the [take charge] request of the Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge 
(Federal Office for Migration and Refugees) and referred to the refugee protection 
already granted [by Poland]. No final decision has been taken yet concerning the 
asylum applications of the applicant’s parents and siblings in Germany. In 2016, 
the applicant submitted an application for asylum in Germany. There was no 
procedure for taking charge of the applicant under Regulation (EU) No 604/2013. 
By decision of 20 March 2019, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees 
rejected the applicant’s asylum application as inadmissible. It based its decision, 
in essence, on the fact that in accordance with Regulation No 604/2013 and, in 
particular, Articles 9, 10 and 20(3) thereof, another Member State was responsible 
for examining the asylum application. 
The applicant […] brought an action against that decision before the referring 
court. 
Questions 1 to 3 are relevant to the decision because their answer will determine 
whether Germany is responsible for examining the applicant’s application for 
international protection pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 3(2) or the 
third subparagraph of Article 21(1) or Article 23(3) of Regulation (EU) 
No 6[0]4/2013, or whether the application is not to be examined in Germany and a 
transfer decision is to be taken pursuant to Article 26 of the regulation. Question 4 
is relevant to the decision in so far as, if the answer is in the affirmative, the 
decision of the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, which is contested in 
the present case, could also be understood, under national procedural law, as a 
decision on inadmissibility under Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU. 
[Or. 4] 
[…]