CELEX: 62017CN0662
Language: en
Date: 2017-11-27 00:00:00
Title: Case C-662/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije lodged on 27 November 2017 — E. G. v Republic of Slovenia

29.1.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 32/15
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije lodged on 27 November 2017 — E. G. v Republic of Slovenia
   (Case C-662/17)
   (2018/C 032/22)
   Language of the case: Slovenian
   
      Referring court
   
   Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Appellant: E. G.
   
      Respondent: Republic of Slovenia
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Is the appellant’s interest within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 46(2) of Procedural Directive II (1) to be interpreted to the effect that subsidiary protection status does not grant the same rights and benefits as refugee status if, under national law, foreign nationals granted international protection do enjoy the same rights and benefits but a different approach is adopted in defining the duration or cessation of international protection, inasmuch as refugee status is granted to refugees for an indefinite period but ceases when the circumstances on the basis of which it was granted cease, whereas subsidiary protection is granted for a specified period and is extended if the reasons for it continue to exist?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Must the appellant’s interest within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 46(2) of Procedural Directive II be interpreted to the effect that subsidiary protection status does not offer the same rights and benefits as refugee status, if, under national law, foreign nationals granted international protection do enjoy the same rights and benefits but the ancillary rights on which those rights and benefits are based are different?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Is it necessary, in the light of the appellant’s individual situation, to examine whether, in view of his particular circumstances, the grant of refugee status would confer on him more rights than those afforded by the grant of subsidiary protection, or whether, for the interest referred to in the second paragraph of Article 46(2) of Procedural Directive II to continue to exist, it is sufficient for there to be legislative provisions [Or. 8] that draw a distinction between the ancillary rights that are based on the rights and benefits of the two forms of international protection?
            
         
      (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).