CELEX: 62019CN0238
Language: en
Date: 2019-03-20 00:00:00
Title: Case C-238/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 20 March 2019 — EZ v Federal Republic of Germany

17.6.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 206/25
            
         
      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 20 March 2019 — EZ v Federal Republic of Germany
      (Case C-238/19)
      (2019/C 206/30)
      Language of the case: German
      
         Referring court
      
      Verwaltungsgericht Hannover
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: EZ
      
         Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
      
         Questions referred
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Is Article 9(2)(e) of Directive 2011/95/EU (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a ‘refusal to perform military service in a conflict’ does not require the person concerned to have refused to perform military service in a formalised refusal procedure, where the law of the country of origin does not provide for a right to refuse to perform military service?
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:
                  By the reference to ‘refusal to perform military service in a conflict’, does Article 9(2)(e) of Directive 2011/95/EU also protect persons who, after the deferment of military service has expired, do not make themselves available to the military administration of the State of origin and evade compulsory conscription by fleeing?
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  If Question 2 is to be answered in the affirmative:
                  Is Article 9(2)(e) of Directive 2011/95/EU to be interpreted as meaning that, for a conscript who does not know what his future field of military operation will be, the performance of military service would, directly or indirectly, include ‘crimes or acts falling within the grounds for exclusion as set out in Article 12(2)’ solely because the armed forces of his State of origin repeatedly and systematically commit such crimes or acts using conscripts?
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Is Article 9(3) of Directive 2011/95/EU to be interpreted as meaning that, in accordance with Article 2(d), there must be a connection between the reasons mentioned in Article 10 and the acts of persecution as qualified in Article 9(1) and (2) of Directive 2011/95/EU or the absence of protection against such acts, even in the event of persecution under Article 9(2)(e) of Directive 2011/95/EU?
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  In the event that Question 4 is to be answered in the affirmative, is the connection, within the meaning of Article 9(3) in conjunction with Article 2(d) of Directive 2011/95/EU, between persecution by virtue of prosecution or punishment for refusal to perform military service and the reason for persecution already established in the case where prosecution or punishment is triggered by refusal?
               
            
         (1)  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).