Case C-7/25, Ramadi: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Roermond (Netherlands) lodged on 7 January 2025 – K v Minister van Asiel en Migratie
Date: 2025-01-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: asylum seeker, cruel and degrading treatment, international protection, judicial review, proof, right of asylum, right to an effective remedy








C_202502056EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2056


14.4.2025





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Roermond (Netherlands) lodged on 7 January 2025 – K v Minister van Asiel en Migratie

(Case C-7/25, Ramadi)
                (1)

(C/2025/2056)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Roermond

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: K

Defendant: Minister van Asiel en Migratie

Questions referred







1.


Is a national practice whereby Article 4(5) of Directive 2011/95 (2) is applied in such a way that the statements underlying an application for international protection are not deemed credible if the applicant cannot fully substantiate those statements by means of authentic and/or objectively verifiable documents and/or objective sources and does not meet all the conditions set out in the fifth paragraph compatible with EU law, or must Article 4(5) of Directive 2011/95, read in conjunction with Article 4(1) to (4) of Directive 2011/95, Article 10(3)(b) of Directive 2013/32 (3) and Articles 4 and 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as requiring the determining authority, when assessing the facts and circumstances underlying the application for international protection, to cooperate with the applicant and to take into account every piece of evidence and element in support of that application when examining and assessing the need for protection and, if the applicant is able to support his or her statements sufficiently with evidence or if the applicant fulfils the aforementioned conditions, his or her statements do not require further corroboration and are therefore credible?










2.


Is Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Articles 4, 18, and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to be interpreted as meaning that a national court of first instance called upon to review the lawfulness of declaring an application for international protection unfounded is obliged to carry out of its own motion, if necessary, a full and ex nunc examination of both the factual and legal grounds, including an examination of the need for international protection in accordance with Directive 2011/95 on the basis of the elements of the file brought to its attention, as supplemented or clarified following adversarial proceedings?






(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 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 (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).

(3)  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).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2056/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)