The EU law does not provide for the principle of mutual recognition about positive decisions granting refugee status, advocate general Laila Medina has said, related to the case of a Syrian national who obtained refugee status in Greece and subsequently applied for international protection in Germany.
Medina said that EU states are not bound to recognise refugee status granted in another Member State, referring to the case C-753/22.
A refugee from Syria who got asylum in Greece later sought international protection in Germany. A German court decided that as a result of living conditions for refugees in Greece, she faced a significant risk of suffering inhuman or degrading treatment and that she could not return to the Hellenic Republic.
In spite of declining her refugee status, Germany granted her subsidiary protection. Then, she appealed the rejection of refugee status in German courts.
This case focuses on what happens when someone is granted refugee status in one EU country and, as a result of bad conditions, can’t go back there.
Based on Medina’s opinion, according to the Dublin III Regulation, the concept of a single responsible Member State does not mean automatically accepting international protection granted by another EU Member State without a thorough examination.
However, the authorities of the second Member State (Germany) examining the subsequent application cannot simply disregard the fact that another Member State (Greece) has already been granted refugee status. Indeed, this fact may constitute one of the elements substantiating the facts relied upon in support of the subsequent application.
Through a statement, the Court of Justice of the European Union notes that those authorities are to prioritise the examination of the subsequent application.
They are also to consider the use of the information exchange mechanisms between the Member States provided for by the Dublin III Regulation, while the authorities in the first Member State (Greece) should respond to all requests for information within a markedly shorter time-frame than the deadline applicable under normal circumstances.
However, the Advocate General’s opinion, in this case, Laila Medina, serves as a suggestion to the Court of Justice. It does not mean that the court is obliged to follow it. The Advocates General suggest a legal solution for cases; however, it is up to the Judges of the Court to decide. At present, the judges are discussing the case, while a decision on this case is expected to be announced at a later date.
