Article 4 - Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Key facts of the case:
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection – Directive 2013/32/EU – Article 33(2)(a) – No possibility for the authorities of a Member State to reject an application for asylum as inadmissible on the ground that refugee status was previously granted in another Member State – Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in that other Member State – Examination by those authorities of that application for asylum despite the granting of refugee status in that other Member State – Directive 2011/95/EU – Article 4 – Individual examination.
Outcome of the case:
On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:
Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, Article 4(1) and Article 13 of 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, and Article 10(2) and (3) and Article 33(1) and (2)(a) of 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
must be interpreted as meaning that where the competent authority of a Member State cannot exercise the option available to it under the last of those provisions to reject as inadmissible an application for international protection made by an applicant, to which another Member State has already granted such protection, on account of a serious risk that that applicant will be subjected, in that other Member State, to inhuman or degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, that authority must carry out a new, individual, full and up-to-date examination of that application in a new international protection procedure conducted in accordance with Directives 2011/95 and 2013/32. Within the framework of that examination, that authority must nevertheless take full account of the decision of that other Member State to grant international protection to that applicant and of the elements on which that decision is based.
48. By its single question, the referring court asks, in essence, (i) whether Article 3(1) of Regulation No 604/2013, Article 4(1) and Article 13 of Directive 2011/95, and Article 10(2) and (3) and Article 33(1) and (2)(a) of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the competent authority of a Member State cannot exercise the option available to it under the last of those provisions to reject as inadmissible an application for international protection made by an applicant, to whom another Member State has already granted such protection, on account of a serious risk that that applicant will be subjected, in that other Member State, to inhuman or degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter, that authority is required to grant that applicant refugee status on the sole ground that he or she has already been granted refugee status by that other Member State or (ii) whether it may carry out a new, independent examination of the substance of that application.
...
52. That being said, the Court held that, by way of exception, the authorities of a Member State cannot exercise the option made available to them under Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32 to reject an application for international protection as inadmissible on the ground that the applicant has been previously granted international protection by another Member State, where they reached the conclusion that the living conditions that that applicant could be expected to encounter as the beneficiary of international protection in that other Member State would expose him or her to a substantial risk of suffering inhuman or degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 March 2019, Ibrahim and Others, C‑297/17, C‑318/17, C‑319/17 and C‑438/17, EU:C:2019:219, paragraph 92; order of 13 November 2019, Hamed and Omar, C‑540/17 and C‑541/17, EU:C:2019:964, paragraph 35, and judgment of 22 February 2022, Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides (Family unity – Protection already granted), C‑483/20, EU:C:2022:103, paragraphs 32 and 34).
53. Since the option made available under Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32 constitutes, within the framework of the common asylum procedure established by that directive, an expression of the principle of mutual trust, which allows and requires Member States to presume, in the context of the Common European Asylum System, that the treatment of applicants for international protection in each Member State complies with the requirements of the Charter, in particular Articles 1 and 4 thereof, which enshrine one of the fundamental values of the European Union and its Member States, where it is established that this is not in fact the case in a given Member State, that presumption, and the exercise of the option resulting therefrom, cannot be justified (judgment of 19 March 2019, Ibrahim and Others, C‑297/17, C‑318/17, C‑319/17 and C‑438/17, EU:C:2019:219, paragraphs 83 to 86, and order of 13 November 2019, Hamed and Omar, C‑540/17 and C‑541/17, EU:C:2019:964, paragraph 41).
80. In the light of all the foregoing, the answer to the question referred is that Article 3(1) of Regulation No 604/2013, Article 4(1) and Article 13 of Directive 2011/95, and Article 10(2) and (3) and Article 33(1) and (2)(a) of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as meaning that where the competent authority of a Member State cannot exercise the option available to it under the last of those provisions to reject as inadmissible an application for international protection made by an applicant, to which another Member State has already granted such protection, on account of a serious risk that that applicant will be subjected, in that other Member State, to inhuman or degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter, that authority must carry out a new, individual, full and up-to-date examination of that application in a new international protection procedure conducted in accordance with Directives 2011/95 and 2013/32. Within the framework of that examination, that authority must nevertheless take full account of the decision of that other Member State to grant international protection to that applicant and of the elements on which that decision is based.
