Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2020:225
Date: 2020-03-19
Language of the case: German
Subject matter: Asylum policy;Area of freedom, security and justice;Border checks
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2017 — Milkiyas Addis v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Case C-517/17) Language of the case: German Referring court Bundesverwaltungsgericht Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Milkiyas Addis Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland Questions referred Does EU law preclude a Member State (in this case, Germany) from rejecting an application for international protection as inadmissible on the ground that refugee status has been granted in another Member State (in this case, Italy), in implementation of the power under Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU 1 or under the rule in Article 25(2)(a) of Directive 2005/85/EC 2 that preceded it, if the form which the international protection takes, and more specifically, the living conditions of persons qualifying as refugees, in the other Member State which has already granted the applicant international protection (in this case, Italy), does not satisfy the requirements of Article 20 et seq. of Directive 2011/95/EU but does not, in and of itself, infringe Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union or Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms? If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, is this also the case where, although the persons qualifying as refugees in the Member State in which they so qualify (in this case, Italy) (a) do not receive any subsistence benefits at all, or those which they do receive are very limited by comparison with those available in other Member States, they are to this extent not treated any differently from nationals of that Member State, and they (b) are admittedly, granted the rights provided for under Article 20 et seq. of Directive 2011/95/EU but in fact have greater difficulty in accessing the related benefits or benefits under family or social networks which replace or supplement State benefits? Does the first sentence of Article 14(1) of Directive 2013/32/EU or the rule in the first sentence of Article 12(1) of Directive 2005/85/EC that preceded it preclude the application of a national provision under which the failure to conduct a personal interview with the applicant in the case where the determining authority rejects an asylum application as inadmissible, in implementation of the power under Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU or the rule in Article 25(2)(a) of Directive 2005/85/EC that preceded it, does not result in that decision being annulled by reason of that failure if the applicant has an opportunity in the judicial proceedings to set out all the circumstances mitigating against a decision of inadmissibility and, even having regard to those submissions, no other decision can be taken in the case? ____________ 1 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, OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60. 2 Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13.