M. M. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Others.
Date: 2012-11-22
66. This requirement that the Member State cooperate therefore means, in practical terms, that if, for any reason whatsoever, the elements provided by an applicant for international protection are not complete, up to date or relevant, it is necessary for the Member State concerned to cooperate actively with the applicant, at that stage of the procedure, so that all the elements needed to substantiate the application may be assembled. A Member State may also be better placed than an applicant to gain access to certain types of documents.
79. However, Directive 2005/85 does not apply to applications for subsidiary protection except where a Member State establishes a single procedure in which an application is examined in the light of both forms of international protection, namely asylum and subsidiary protection. In such a situation, the rules set out in that directive must be applied throughout the procedure, thus also when the competent national authority examines an application for subsidiary protection.
86. In accordance with the Court’s case‑law, observance of that right is required even where the applicable legislation does not expressly provide for such a procedural requirement (see Sopropé , paragraph 38).
87. The right to be heard guarantees every person the opportunity to make known his views effectively during an administrative procedure and before the adoption of any decision liable to affect his interests adversely (see, inter alia, Case C‑287/02 Spain  v Commission  [2005] ECR I‑5093, paragraph 37 and case‑law cited; Sopropé , paragraph 37; Case C‑141/08 P Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware  v Council [2009] ECR I‑9147, paragraph 83; and Case C‑27/09 P France  v People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran  [2011] ECR I‑13427, paragraphs 64 and 65).
88. That right also requires the authorities to pay due attention to the observations thus submitted by the person concerned, examining carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the individual case and giving a detailed statement of reasons for their decision (see Case C‑269/90 Technische Universität München [1991] ECR I‑5469, paragraph 14, and Sopropé , paragraph 50); the obligation to state reasons for a decision which are sufficiently specific and concrete to allow the person to understand why his application is being rejected is thus a corollary of the principle of respect for the rights of the defence.
90. In that regard, the Court cannot accept the view put forward by the referring court and Ireland that, where – as in Ireland – an application for subsidiary protection is dealt with in a separate procedure, necessarily after the rejection of an asylum application upon conclusion of an examination in which the applicant has been heard, it is not necessary for the applicant to be heard again for the purpose of considering his application for subsidiary protection because the formality of a hearing in a sense replicates the hearing which he has already had in a largely similar context.
93. It should be added that, according to the Court’s settled case‑law, the Member States must not only interpret their national law in a manner consistent with EU law but also make sure they do not rely on an interpretation which would be in conflict with the fundamental rights protected by the EU legal order or with the other general principles of EU law (see Joined Cases C‑411/10 and C‑493/10 N.S. and Others [2011] ECR I‑13905, paragraph 77).