Case C-277/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland) — M. M. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland, Attorney General (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common European Asylum System — Directive 2004/83/EC — Minimum standards for qualification for refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Article 4(1), second sentence — Cooperation of the Member State with the applicant to assess the relevant elements of his application — Scope — Lawfulness of the national procedure for processing an application for subsidiary protection following rejection of an application for refugee status — Observance of fundamental rights — Right to be heard)
Date: 2012-11-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: fundamental rights, human rights, international cooperation, interpretation of the law, refugee, right of asylum, rights of the defence








C_2013026EN.01000901.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/9





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland) — M. M. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland, Attorney General
(Case C-277/11) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common European Asylum System - Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for qualification for refugee status or subsidiary protection status - Article 4(1), second sentence - Cooperation of the Member State with the applicant to assess the relevant elements of his application - Scope - Lawfulness of the national procedure for processing an application for subsidiary protection following rejection of an application for refugee status - Observance of fundamental rights - Right to be heard)
2013/C 26/16
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: M. M.

Defendants: Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland, Attorney General

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Ireland — Interpretation of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12) — Application for subsidiary protection following refusal to grant refugee status — Proposal to reject application for subsidiary protection — Obligation to provide the applicant with the results of the assessment of his application before taking a final decision

Operative part of the judgment

The requirement that the Member State concerned cooperate with an applicant for asylum, as stated in the second sentence of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, cannot be interpreted as meaning that, where a foreign national requests subsidiary protection status after he has been refused refugee status and the competent national authority is minded to reject that second application as well, the authority is on that basis obliged — before adopting its decision — to inform the applicant that it proposes to reject his application and notify him of the arguments on which it intends to base its rejection, so as to enable him to make known his views in that regard.
However, in the case of a system such as that established by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, a feature of which is that there are two separate procedures, one after the other, for examining applications for refugee status and applications for subsidiary protection respectively, it is for the national court to ensure observance, in each of those procedures, of the applicant’s fundamental rights and, more particularly, of the right to be heard in the sense that the applicant must be able to make known his views before the adoption of any decision that does not grant the protection requested. In such a system, the fact that the applicant has already been duly heard when his application for refugee status was examined does not mean that that procedural requirement may be dispensed with in the procedure relating to the application for subsidiary protection.


(1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.