Case C-839/24, Casamance: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 9 December 2024 – ZP v Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2024-12-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: asylum seeker, cruel and degrading treatment, foreign national, international protection, judicial review, persecution, public safety, right of asylum, third country, war








C_202501219EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1219


3.3.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 9 December 2024 – ZP v Federal Republic of Germany


(Case C-839/24, Casamance)
                (1)

(C/2025/1219)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ZP

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred







1.


Is Annex I to Directive 2013/32/EU (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (Directive 2013/32/EU) (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 1) to be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of designating a country as a safe country of origin, there must be safety throughout the country for all population categories, or groups of persons,






(a)


so that such designation of a country as a safe country of origin is precluded if in that country only members of a certain group or a certain circle of persons, but not other persons who do not belong to that group or circle of persons, fear persecution within the meaning of Article 9 of Directive 2011/95/EU (3) 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 (Directive 2011/95/EU) (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9), or fear being subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or threat by reason of indiscriminatory violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict and










(b)


so that such designation of a country as a safe country of origin is precluded if in that country members of a certain group or a certain circle of persons only within a region fear persecution, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or threat by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict?














2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, in whole or in part:






(a)


What is meant by such a ‘group’ or ‘circle of persons’, when do such categories of persons exist and do they include regional or local groups or also circles of persons and/or groups with a small number of members?










(b)


When do the members of such a ‘group’ or such a ‘circle of persons’ fear persecution as defined in Article 9 of Directive 2011/95/EU, or fear being subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or threat by reason of indiscriminate violence in the context of international or internal armed conflict (question concerning the group-based probability standard or the required group-related relative or absolute quantity of such events)?














3.


If Question 1 is answered in the negative: how is the expression ‘generally and consistently’ in Annex I to Directive 2013/32/EU otherwise to be understood?










4.


Is Annex I to Directive 2013/32/EU to be interpreted as meaning that the competent national authorities of the Member State enjoy, for the purposes of designating a country as a safe country of origin, a margin of assessment and discretion which is subject only to a limited judicial review?










5.


If Question 4 is answered in the affirmative:






(a)


What is the scope of the judicial review?










(b)


Is it an error of assessment if, in the absence of a reasoned analysis to that effect, it is not clear why there is a derogation from the reasoned assessment or the case-law of higher courts in one or more other Member States in relation to the same country of origin?










(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).

(3)  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 (recast) (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1219/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)