Summary;Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2023:902
Date: 2023-11-23
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Asylum policy;Area of freedom, security and justice
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Belgium

Translation C-374/22 – 1 
Case C-374/22 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
8 June 2022 
Referring court: 
Conseil d’État (Belgium) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
18 May 2022 
Appellant: 
XXX 
Respondent: 
Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides 
  
CONSEIL D’ÉTAT (COUNCIL OF STATE), ADMINISTRATIVE 
LITIGATION DIVISION 
ELEVENTH CHAMBER 
JUDGMENT 
No 253.779 of 18 May 2022 
[…] 
In the proceedings: XXX, 
 […] 
 v 
 Commissaire général 
 aux réfugiés et aux apatrides 
(Commissioner General for Refugees 
and Stateless Persons, Belgium) 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 18. 5. 2022 – CASE C-374/22 
 
2  
I. Subject matter of the appeal 
1. By an appeal in cassation lodged on 25 May 2020, XXX sought to have set 
aside Judgment No 235.262 of 17 April 2020 […] of the Conseil du contentieux 
des étrangers (Council for asylum and immigration proceedings, Belgium). 
II. […] 
[…] [procedure] 
III. Facts relevant to the examination of the matter 
The appellant declares that he is a Guinean national. He arrived in Belgium on 
7 November 2007. 
The appellant submitted an initial application for international protection, which 
was rejected. 
He then made two further applications for international protection, which the 
opposing party refused to consider. 
On 29 January 2019, the appellant submitted a fourth application for international 
protection. In support of that application, the appellant relied, inter alia, on the fact 
that he is the father of two children who were born in Belgium and who have been 
recognised as refugees, like their mother. 
On 2 October 2019, the opposing party found that the fourth application was 
inadmissible. 
On 15 October 2019, the appellant brought an action against that decision of 
2 October 2019.  
On 17 April 2020, the Council for asylum and immigration proceedings dismissed 
the action by the judgment under appeal. 
IV. First ground of appeal 
The appellant enters a first ground of appeal alleging infringement ‘of 
Articles 39/65 and 48/3 of the loi du 15 décembre 1980 sur l’accès au territoire, le 
séjour, l’établissement et l’éloignement des étrangers (Law of 15 December 1980 
on the admission, residence, establishment and removal of foreign nationals; ‘the 
Law of 15 December 1980’ or ‘the Law on Foreign Nationals’); Article 23 of 
Directive [2011/95/EU 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 
COMMISSAIRE GÉNÉRAL AUX RÉFUGIÉS ET AUX APATRIDES 
 
3 
the protection granted (‘the Qualification Directive’) [(OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9)]; 
Article 288 [TFEU] […]’. 
IV.1. […] [irrelevant to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling] 
IV.2. Second part 
A. Submissions of the parties 
The appellant states that ‘… Article [23(2)] of Directive 2011/95 contains an 
obligation for Member States to amend their national law so that family members 
of the beneficiary [of international protection] can claim the benefits [listed] in 
Articles 24 to 35’, that ‘… Article 23 of Directive [2011/95] has not, however, 
been transposed … [into] Belgian law in favour, in particular, of parents of a 
minor recognised as a refugee (such as the appellant)’, that ‘… Article 10 of the 
Law of 15 December 1980 creates […] a right to family reunification in favour of 
certain family members of the beneficiary of international protection, provided 
that they comply with the conditions laid down by law …’, that, ‘on the one hand, 
the concept of family member within the meaning of Article 23 of Directive 
2011/95 is broader than the family members referred to in Article 10 of the Law 
of 15 December 1980’, that, ‘by way of illustration, Article 10(1)(7) of the Law of 
15 December 1980 recognises the right to family reunification of the father of a 
foreign national recognised as a refugee, provided that that foreign national is an 
unaccompanied foreign minor’, that ‘if the child is accompanied, as in the case of 
the appellant’s daughter, there is no entitlement to family reunification’, that, ‘on 
the other hand, Articles 10 and 12a of the Law of 15 December 1980 impose 
conditions (on admissibility and substance) for family reunification, such that the 
right to family life for a refugee is not automatic’, that it ‘follows from the above 
that Article 10 of the Law of 15 December 1980 does not fully transpose 
Article 23 of Directive 2011/95’, that ‘Article 9a of the Law of 15 December 1980 
does not transpose it either’, that ‘that article relates to permission (and not 
admission) to stay, with its own conditions of admissibility and substance, which 
do not allow the family member to enjoy the abovementioned benefits’, that ‘… 
[…], an incomplete transposition of Article 23 of Directive [2011/95] is sufficient 
to give rise to a right to be granted international protection status’, that ‘… the 
national law must be interpreted in accordance with Article [23(2)] of Directive 
[2011/95] to guarantee its effectiveness, in accordance with the abovementioned 
case-law’, that ‘… the objective pursued by Article 23 of Directive [2011/95] is to 
maintain the refugee’s family unity’, that ‘that objective is mentioned in […] 
recitals [16 and 18] of the directive …’, that ‘the Belgian legislature has not 
adopted a sui generis status, specifically transposing Article 23 of Directive 
2011/95, so that the family members of the beneficiary of international protection 
can claim the benefits referred to in Articles 24 to 35 of Directive 2011/95’, that 
‘in that context, the national court must therefore interpret the ordinary rules on 
international protection, namely Article 48/3 of the Law, in the light of Article 23 
of Directive 2011/95, to ensure that that provision is effective’, that ‘the granting 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 18. 5. 2022 – CASE C-374/22 
 
4  
of international protection status to family members of a beneficiary of such 
protection is the only mechanism allowing […] family unity to be maintained and 
family members to claim the benefits referred to in Articles 24 to 35’, that ‘… 
those benefits are linked to refugee or international protection status, and are 
grouped together under the heading “Content of international protection”’, that 
‘by way of an example, Article 24 of the directive requires the Member State to 
issue a residence permit “as soon as possible after international protection has 
been granted”’, that ‘Article 25 provides that Member States are to issue … to 
beneficiaries of refugee status travel documents, in the form set out in the 
Schedule to the Geneva Convention, for the purpose of travel outside their 
territory unless compelling reasons of national security or public order otherwise 
require’, that ‘that benefit is accessible only to beneficiaries of international 
protection’, that ‘… […] the judgment under appeal[, according to which] “the 
fact that the transposition of Article 23 of Directive [2011/95] is incomplete, if 
proven, is not sufficient to give rise to a right to be granted international 
protection status [for the] family members of a beneficiary of such protection”, 
[…] undermines […] the effectiveness of Article 23 of Directive 2011/95 and 
Article 288 [TFEU]’, […], that in ‘the absence of the full transposition of 
Article 23 of the directive, Article 48/3 of the Law of 15 December 1980 must be 
interpreted in accordance with Article 23 of the directive in order to comply with 
Article 288 of the Treaty’, that ‘in the absence of an amendment to national law so 
that a refugee’s family members can claim the benefits [listed] in Article 23, the 
judicial authorities are required to take all necessary measures to achieve the result 
prescribed by the directive’, that ‘the only way to achieve that result – that is to 
say, to maintain the family unity of a child refugee by allowing that child’s father 
to claim certain benefits, including being granted a travel document – is to grant 
that father derivative international protection’, […]. [reiterations or irrelevant 
considerations] 
In response, the opposing party submits that ‘… [the appellant remains] unable to 
explain why the Council for asylum and immigration proceedings could not 
lawfully find, as the Court of Justice of the European Union has found, that 
Article 23 of Directive [2011/95] does not refer to the granting of international 
protection status, but only to the benefits referred to in Articles 24 to 35 of that 
directive’, that ‘although the appellant submits that an incomplete transposition of 
Article 23 is sufficient to give rise to a right to be granted international protection 
status, he is unable to put forward any relevant argument to demonstrate that that 
provision relates to the granting of international protection status to the family 
members of a beneficiary of international protection, and not solely to the benefits 
referred to in Articles 24 to 35 of Directive [2011/95]’, that ‘Article 3 of that 
directive allows a Member State to provide, [by means of] a “more favourable 
standard”, for the benefit of international protection to be extended to a family 
member’, that ‘that possibility is not sufficient to give rise to a right that persons 
may claim when the State has not made use of that [option]’, that ‘Belgium has 
not adopted more favourable standards […],’ that ‘if the appellant considers that 
Article 23 of Directive [2011/95] has not been validly transposed into Belgian 
law, it is ineffective that he present his arguments in that regard before the 
COMMISSAIRE GÉNÉRAL AUX RÉFUGIÉS ET AUX APATRIDES 
 
5 
Council for asylum and immigration proceedings, which in any event has no 
jurisdiction to rule as regards the granting of the benefits referred to in Articles 24 
to 35 of that directive, irrespective of whether the transposition of Article 23 is 
complete or not’, that ‘the arguments based on the primacy of EU law and the 
principles of interpretation cannot lead the Council for asylum and immigration 
proceedings to claim jurisdiction that it does not have’, that ‘the Council for 
asylum and immigration proceedings was able lawfully to decide that the 
consideration of the best interests of the child and respect for the family life of the 
appellant did not in any event allow to establish a right for a family member of a 
beneficiary of international protection to be granted the same status as the 
latter …’. 
In reply, the appellant states that ‘the respondent advocates an approach to 
Article 23 of the directive that deprives that provision of any effectiveness’, that 
‘it is not the direct effect of Article 23 of the directive (and thus the direct benefit 
of the European provisions not transposed into Belgian law) that is under 
discussion, but the interpretation of national law in conformity with Article 23, in 
order to guarantee its effectiveness’, that ‘to refer the appellant to a multitude of 
institutions and judicial authorities so that he may assert individually the rights 
referred to in Articles 24 to 35 of Directive [2011/95], which the European 
legislature describes as “content of international protection”, deprives Article 23 
of Directive 2011/95 of its effectiveness and certainly does not pursue the 
objective of the directive (including maintaining the refugee’s family unity and 
considering the best interests of the child)’, that ‘the incomplete transposition of 
Article 23 places a refugee who is a minor in a precarious situation, if his parent 
does not enjoy a status that guarantees him the benefits [listed] in Articles 24 to 35 
of the directive (including the right to a residence permit, but also access to 
employment, education, health care, housing, etc.)’, that ‘as to the jurisdiction of 
the Council for asylum and immigration proceedings, Article 39/2 of the Law of 
15 December 1980 provides that the Council may vary the contested decision’, 
that, ‘accordingly, it has every authority to grant the appellant the refugee status 
sought’, that it ‘is further required, in the words of the Court of Justice, to interpret 
the national law, “so far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of 
the directive concerned in order to achieve the result sought by the directive and 
consequently comply with the third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU”’, that ‘the 
Court of Justice […] [has specified] that the requirement for a consistent 
interpretation of national law is indeed inherent in the TFEU system in that it 
allows national courts to ensure, within the scope of their jurisdiction, the full 
effectiveness of EU law’, that ‘the granting of derivative refugee status is 
moreover fully compatible with EU law (judgment [of 4 October 2018, 
Ahmedbekova, C-652/16, EU:C:2018:801])’, that ‘the appellant deplores the fact 
that the best interests of the child, and the effectiveness of the refugee status of the 
minor, are again examined marginally (by the respondent and by the Council for 
asylum and immigration proceedings), without those best interests being a 
primary consideration’, that ‘the appellant … emphasises the relevance of the 
questions referred for a preliminary ruling’, that they ‘are indeed different from 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 18. 5. 2022 – CASE C-374/22 
 
6  
those giving rise to the Ahmedbekova judgment’. [reiterations or irrelevant 
considerations] 
The parties were asked at the hearing about the applicability of Article 23 of 
Directive [2011/95] to the appellant’s situation, since it is clear from Article 2[(j)] 
of that directive that the family members of the beneficiary of international 
protection […] are covered by [that] directive […]/[…] ‘in so far as the family 
already existed in the country of origin’, and it follows from the appellant’s 
explanations that his family did not exist in the country of origin but did so in 
Belgium, once his children were born there. 
The appellant argued, in essence, that his family did not exist in the country of 
origin, that it does not come within the material scope in the strict sense of 
Directive [2011/95], that he nevertheless relied on his children’s dependency on 
him, that the best interests of his children require him to qualify for international 
protection, that it is necessary to extend the concept of family members within the 
meaning of Directive [2011/95], in accordance with its recitals 18, 19 and 38, in 
order to take account of the best interests of children and the circumstances of 
dependency. […]. 
The opposing party stated, in essence, that the combined reading of Article 2(j) 
and Article 23 of Directive [2011/95] leads to the exclusion from the scope of 
Article 23 of members of a family that [did not] exist in the country of origin, that 
the reading of recitals 18, 19 and 38 [could] not alter that conclusion, that, even if 
extended, the concept of family member means that the family existed in the 
country of origin, that that is not the case here, and that although recitals 18, 19 
and 38 require the best interests of the child to be taken into account, that is 
intended to guide Member States in the interpretation of the directive, but cannot 
run counter to the unequivocal wording of Article 2(j) or justify the application of 
Article 23. 
B. Assessment 
[…] [irrelevant] 
Article 23 of Directive [2011/95] provides: 
‘1. Member States shall ensure that family unity can be maintained. 
2. Member States shall ensure that family members of the beneficiary of 
international protection who do not individually qualify for such protection 
are entitled to claim the benefits referred to in Articles 24 to 35, in 
accordance with national procedures and as far as is compatible with the 
personal legal status of the family member. … 
[…]’ [irrelevant]. 
COMMISSAIRE GÉNÉRAL AUX RÉFUGIÉS ET AUX APATRIDES 
 
7 
The family members of the beneficiary of international protection are defined in 
Article 2(j) of the directive, which states that: 
‘the following definitions shall apply … “family members” means, in so far as the 
family already existed in the country of origin, the following members of the 
family of the beneficiary of international protection who are present in the same 
Member State in relation to the application for international protection: 
– […] [irrelevant] 
– the father, mother or another adult responsible for the beneficiary of 
international protection whether by law or by the practice of the Member 
State concerned, when that beneficiary is a minor and unmarried;’ 
One of the benefits referred to in Articles 24 to 35, which Article 23[(2)] requires 
to be granted, is the residence permit provided for in Article 24 of Directive 
[2011/95]. The opposing party does not dispute that Belgian law does not grant a 
right of residence for the appellant in his situation, in respect of the transposition 
of Directive [2011/95]. The appellant is the father of two minor children who were 
born in Belgium and were recognised as refugees there. The family therefore 
existed in Belgium and did not already exist in the country of origin. 
Article 10(1)(1)(7) of the Law [of 15 December 1980] provides for a right of 
residence for ‘the father and mother of a foreign national recognised as a refugee 
within the meaning of Article 48/3 or enjoying subsidiary protection, who come to 
live with him or her, provided he or she is under the age of 18 and has entered the 
Kingdom without being accompanied by an adult foreign national responsible for 
him or her by law and has not been effectively taken into the care of such a person 
subsequently, or has been left unaccompanied after entering the Kingdom’. That 
provision does not apply to the appellant, since his minor children did not enter 
Belgium without being accompanied by an adult foreign national responsible for 
them. 
The Conseil d’État (Council of State, Belgium) is uncertain as regards the 
applicability of Article 23 of Directive [2011/95] to the appellant’s situation, 
given that Article 2(j) of that directive states that the family members of the 
beneficiary of international protection … are covered by Directive 2011/95/EU 
[…] ‘in so far as the family already existed in the country of origin’. […] 
[reiterations] 
Accordingly, the Court of Justice of the European Union should be asked for a 
preliminary ruling on the applicability of Article 23 of Directive [2011/95] to the 
appellant’s situation. The [first two] questions [set out in the operative part] 
should be referred for a preliminary ruling. 
– […] [text of the first two questions]. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 18. 5. 2022 – CASE C-374/22 
 
8  
If the Court of Justice of the European Union should find that Article 23 of 
Directive [2011/95] does apply to the appellant’s situation, the appellant submits, 
in essence, that, in the absence of having been validly transposed into Belgian law, 
that provision has direct effect, meaning that Belgium is under an obligation to 
grant him international protection. At the same time, the appellant asserts that the 
national law must be applied in a manner consistent with EU law and that, in order 
to give effect to Article 23 of Directive [2011/95], which has not been transposed, 
Article 48/3 of the Law of 15 December 1980 on the granting of refugee status 
must be interpreted as allowing him to be granted international protection. 
The Council of State considers that, pending the judgment of the Court of Justice 
of the European Union on the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the 
present judgment, Article 23 of Directive [2011/95] does not seem to require 
international protection to be granted to the family members of the beneficiary of 
international protection covered by that directive. That provision seems to provide 
only for the granting of the benefits referred to in Articles 24 to 35 to family 
members who do not individually qualify for international protection. Moreover, 
Article 48/3 of the Law of 15 December 1980 does not offer the possibility of 
granting international protection to persons, such as the appellant, who do not 
individually qualify for such protection. The interpretation of Article 48/3 of the 
Law of 15 December 1980, relied on by the appellant, according to which 
international protection could be granted to him under that provision, is therefore 
a contra legem interpretation. 
It seems to the Council of State, pending the judgment of the Court of Justice of 
the European Union ruling on the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by 
the present judgment, that if Article 23 of Directive [2011/95] did apply to the 
appellant and had direct effect in the absence of transposition, the appellant could 
claim the benefit of what appears to be provided for in Article 23, namely the 
granting of the benefits referred to in Articles 24 to 35 and in particular the 
residence permit provided for in Article 24, which would enable him to reside 
legally in Belgium with his family. By contrast, the direct effect of Article 23 of 
Directive [2011/95] does not seem to imply that the appellant is entitled to 
something not provided for by that article, namely international protection when 
the appellant does not individually qualify for such protection. 
Since the Council of State is adjudicating at last instance, it is obliged to refer the 
matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union, as requested by the 
appellant, concerning the possible direct effect of Article 23 of Directive 
[2011/95] and its consequences. 
The [third and fourth] questions [set out in the operative part] should therefore be 
referred for a preliminary ruling. 
– […] [text of the third and fourth questions] 
This question [constitutes the fifth question set out in the operative part]. 
COMMISSAIRE GÉNÉRAL AUX RÉFUGIÉS ET AUX APATRIDES 
 
9 
– […] [text of the fifth question] 
V. Second ground of appeal 
A. Submissions of the parties 
The appellant enters a second ground of appeal alleging infringement ‘of 
Articles 39/65, 48/3 and 57/1(4) of the Law of 15 December 1980 […]; 
Articles 20 and 23 of Directive 2011/95 […]; Article 8 of the European 
Convention on Human Rights [‘the ECHR’]; Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union [‘the Charter’]; Article 3 of the 
International Convention on the Rights of the Child […]’. 
The appellant submits that ‘the concept of the best interests of the child introduced 
in Article 3 of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child is also 
taken up […] in Article [20(5)] of Directive 2011/95, and in Article 24 of the 
[Charter]’, that ‘it is also a question of the appellant’s family life with his 
daughter, recognised as a refugee in Belgium, protected by Article 8 of the 
[ECHR] and [Article] 7 of the Charter’, that ‘the Council for asylum and 
immigration proceedings finds that it does not see how “taking into account the 
best interests of the child would be sufficient to give the ascendant of a 
beneficiary of international protection a right to benefit from the same status as 
the latter”’, that ‘neither the opposing party nor the [Council for asylum and 
immigration proceedings] give the best interests of the appellant’s daughter 
primary consideration’, [that a] ‘simple option for the benefit of a Member State, 
provided for by an act of secondary EU legislation, may become a legal obligation 
for that Member State in order to guarantee respect for the fundamental rights 
enshrined in the [Charter] […]’, […] that ‘… even in the absence of a formal 
obligation laid down in Article 23 of Directive 2011/95 to grant the parent of a 
recognised refugee the same international protection status, that obligation stems 
from the combined reading of Articles 20 and 23 of Directive [2011/95], read in 
the light of Articles 7, 18 and 24 of the Charter, [Article] 8 of the European 
Convention on Human Rights and [Article] 3 of the International Convention on 
the Rights of the Child’, that ‘as Belgian law currently stands, under which the 
appellant is not entitled to family reunification in respect of his daughter, the 
[Council for asylum and immigration proceedings] […] [had to] make a balanced 
and reasonable assessment of all the current and relevant circumstances of the 
case, taking account of all the interests in play and, in particular, of the best 
interests of the child concerned’, that ‘… consideration of the best interests of the 
child may suffice to entitle the family member of a minor beneficiary of 
international protection to the same status as the child’, that ‘the best interests of 
the child are indeed an interpretative rule which must guide the Council for 
asylum and immigration proceedings in its application of Article 23 of the 
directive’, […] [reiterations or irrelevant considerations] 
– […] [text of the sixth question]. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 18. 5. 2022 – CASE C-374/22 
 
10  
In response, the opposing party argues that […] [reiterations] [‘]the only 
obligations arising from Article 23 were to grant the benefits referred to in 
Articles 24 to 35 of Directive [2011/95] and no obligation arose to grant 
international protection status to the family members of a beneficiary of 
international protection’, that ‘… the Council for asylum and immigration 
proceedings cannot be required to grant international protection status on the basis 
of Article 23 of the directive, when that provision does not provide for it’, that ‘… 
the Council for asylum and immigration proceedings was able lawfully to 
conclude that the fact that the transposition of Article 23 of Directive [2011/95] is 
incomplete, if proven, is not sufficient to give rise to a right to be granted 
international protection status for the family members of a beneficiary of such 
protection’, that ‘… the Court of Justice has already ruled on the scope of 
Article 23 of Directive [2011/95] and the fact that that article might not be fully 
transposed into Belgian law cannot under any circumstances lead to the granting 
of international protection status to the appellant’, […]. [reiterations or irrelevant 
considerations] 
In reply, the appellant states […] that ‘… the best interests of the child must be a 
primary consideration for the United Nations, the European Union and the Belgian 
legislature; accordingly, Member States, when implementing EU law, must make 
a balanced and reasonable assessment of all the current and relevant 
circumstances of the case, taking account of all the interests in play (see, in 
particular, judgment of 26 March 2019, SM (Child placed under Algerian kafala), 
C-129/18, EU:C:2019:248), in which the Court of Justice interpreted the concept 
of another family member extensively, in the name of the best interests of the 
child – but also the recent judgment of 16 July 2020, État belge (Family 
reunification – Minor child), C-133/19, C-136/19 and C-137/19, EU:C:2020:577); 
a simple option for a Member State, provided for by an act of secondary EU 
legislation, may become a legal obligation for that Member State to guarantee 
respect for the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of the European Union’ 
[…]. [reiterations] 
B. Assessment 
[…] [irrelevant] 
In the present second ground of appeal, the appellant submits, in essence, that the 
consideration of the best interests of the child referred to in Article 20 of Directive 
[2011/95] and respect for family life implies that international protection must be 
granted, under Article 23 of that directive, to the father of children recognised as 
refugees in Belgium and who were born there, even if the father does not 
individually qualify for such protection. 
The Council of State, pending the judgment of the Court of Justice of the 
European Union ruling on the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the 
present judgment, does not consider [this to be the case] […]. [reiterations] 
COMMISSAIRE GÉNÉRAL AUX RÉFUGIÉS ET AUX APATRIDES 
 
11 
Assuming that Directive [2011/95] applies to the father of children who were 
recognised as refugees in Belgium and who were born there, it seems possible that 
the best interests of the child referred to in Article 20 of Directive [2011/95] and 
respect for family life can be achieved by granting a residence permit allowing the 
father to reside legally in Belgium with his family, without it being necessary to 
grant him international protection when he does not individually qualify for such 
protection. If the Court of Justice of the European Union should find that 
Article 23 of Directive 2011/95/EU applies to the appellant and that, in the 
absence of transposition of that provision, it has direct effect, the appellant could 
claim from the Belgian State the benefits referred to in Articles 24 to 35, including 
a residence permit allowing him to reside legally in Belgium with his family. 
Since the Council of State is adjudicating at last instance, it is obliged to refer the 
matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union, as requested by the 
appellant, as to whether the consideration of the best interests of the child, as 
referred to in Article 20 of Directive 2011/95/EU, and respect for family life, 
means that international protection must be granted, under Article 23 of that 
directive, to the father of children who were recognised as refugees in Belgium 
and who were born there, even if the father does not individually qualify for such 
protection. 
It is therefore necessary to ask the question raised by the appellant. This question 
[is the sixth question in the operative part]. 
– […] [text of the sixth question] 
ON THOSE GROUNDS, 
THE COUNCIL OF STATE HEREBY FINDS: 
[…] 
Pursuant to [the third paragraph of] Article 267 [TFEU], the following questions 
are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling: 
– ‘Are Article 2(j) and Article 23 of “Directive 2011/95/EU 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” to be interpreted as applying to 
the father of two children who were born in Belgium and who have 
been recognised as refugees there, whereas Article 2(j) of Directive 
2011/95/EU specifies that the family members of the beneficiary of 
international protection who are covered by Directive 2011/95/EU are 
such “in so far as the family already existed in the country of origin”?’ 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 18. 5. 2022 – CASE C-374/22 
 
12  
– ‘Does the fact relied on by the appellant at the hearing, that his 
children are dependent on him and that, according to the appellant, the 
best interests of his children require that international protection be 
granted to him, mean, in the light of recitals 18, 19 and 38 of Directive 
2011/95/EU, that the concept of family members of the beneficiary of 
international protection, covered by Directive 2011/95/EU, is extended 
to a family that did not exist in the country of origin?’ 
– ‘If the first two questions referred for a preliminary ruling are 
answered in the affirmative, can Article 23 of Directive 2011/95/EU, 
which has not been transposed into Belgian law to provide for the 
granting of a residence permit or international protection to the father 
of children who were recognised as refugees in Belgium and who were 
born there, have direct effect?’ 
– ‘If so, does Article 23 of Directive 2011/95/EU confer, in the absence 
of transposition, on the father of children recognised as refugees in 
Belgium and born there the right to claim the benefits referred to in 
Articles 24 to 35, including a residence permit allowing him to reside 
legally in Belgium with his family, or the right to obtain international 
protection even if the father does not individually qualify for such 
protection?’ 
– ‘Does the effectiveness of Article 23 of the Qualification Directive, 
read in the light of Articles 7, 18 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental 
Rights of the European Union and recitals 18, 19 and 38 of the 
Qualification Directive, require Member States that have not amended 
their national laws so that family members (within the meaning of 
Article 2(j) of that directive or in respect of whom there are particular 
circumstances of dependency) of the beneficiary of such status may, if 
they do not individually qualify for such status, claim certain benefits, 
to grant those family members the right to derivative refugee status so 
that they may claim those benefits in order to maintain family unity?’ 
– ‘Does Article 23 of the Qualification Directive, read in the light of 
Articles 7, 18 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the 
European Union and recitals 18, 19 and 38 of the Qualification 
Directive, require Member States that have not amended their national 
laws, so that the parents of a recognised refugee can claim the benefits 
listed in Articles 24 to 35 of the directive, to [allow those parents to] 
enjoy derivative international protection in order to give primary 
consideration to the best interests of the child and to ensure the 
effectiveness of that child’s refugee status?’ 
[…] 
COMMISSAIRE GÉNÉRAL AUX RÉFUGIÉS ET AUX APATRIDES 
 
13 
[procedure and composition of the formation of the Court]