Duitse rechter stelt prejudiciële vragen over vervolging vanwege een geloof / religie
Request for a preliminary
ruling from the Sächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on
30 March 2015 — Der Bundesbeauftragte für Asylangelegenheiten v N
(Case C-150/15)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Sächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Der Bundesbeauftragte für Asylangelegenheiten
Defendant: N
Other party: Federal Republic of Germany
Questions referred
1. Is Article 9(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 10(1)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU 1 to be interpreted as follows:
a) that
a severe violation of the freedom of religion guaranteed by
Article 10(1) CFREU (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European
Union) and Article 9(1) ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) and
thus an act of persecution under Article 9(1)(a) of the Directive must
be assumed when religious acts or expressions of view that are mandated
by a doctrine of faith that the applicant actively professes and which
form a core element of the doctrine of faith or are based on the
religious convictions of the applicant in the sense that they are a
pillar of his religious identity, are prohibited by criminal law in the
country of origin,
or
b) is
it required that an applicant who actively declares his belief in a
particular doctrine of faith must further prove that core elements
mandated as religious acts or as or expressions of view by the doctrine
of faith, which represent a prohibited religious activity subject to
criminal prosecution in his country of origin, are ‘particularly
important’ for the preservation of his religious identity and in this
sense are ‘essential’?
2. Is Article 9(3) in conjunction with Article 2(d) of Directive 2011/95/EU to be interpreted as follows:
that
in order to determine a well-founded fear of being persecuted and a
real risk of being persecuted or subjected to inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment by one of the actors specified in Article 6 of
Directive 2011/95/EU, with regard to religious acts or expressions of
view that are mandated by a doctrine of faith that the applicant
actively professes and are a core element of the doctrine of faith or
are based on the religious convictions of the applicant in the sense
that they are a pillar of his religious identity, and are prohibited by
criminal law in the country of origin,
a) it
is necessary to evaluate the relationship by comparing the number of
members of the applicant’s faith who practice their faith despite the
prohibition to the number of actual acts of persecution of these acts of
faith in the applicant’s country of origin, including any possible
uncertainties or unknowns regarding governmental enforcement practices,
or
b) it
is sufficient if, in the enforcement of the criminal law in the country
of origin, the actual application of the laws threatening prosecution
of religious acts or expressions of view that are mandated by a doctrine
of faith that the applicant actively professes and which form a core
element of the doctrine of faith or are based on the religious
convictions of the applicant in the sense that they are a of particular
importance for his religious identity can be proved?
3.
Is a provision of national administrative law under which a trial court
is bound by the legal judgment of the court of third instance (here:
Section 144(6) VwGO (Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung) [Administrative Court
Procedure Act]) compatible with the principle of the primacy of EU law
if the trial court wishes to interpret a standard in EU law differently
to the court of third instance but, even after implementation of a
preliminary ruling procedure pursuant to Article 267(2) TFEU, is
precluded from applying this interpretation of EU law by national law
binding the court to the legal analysis of the court of third instance?
________________________
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 L 337, p. 9).
Interessant artikel? Deel het eens met uw netwerk en help mee met het verspreiden van de bekendheid van dit blog. Er staan wellicht nog meer artikelen op dit weblog die u zullen boeien. Kijk gerust eens rond. Zelf graag wat willen plaatsen? Mail dan webmaster@vreemdelingenrecht.com In verband met geldwolven die denken geld te kunnen claimen op krantenartikelen die op een blog als deze worden geplaatst maar na meestal een dag voor de krantenlezers aan leeswaardigheid hebben ingeboet terwijl wij vreemdelingenrecht specialisten ze soms wel nog jaren gebruiken om er een kopie van te maken voor een zaak ga ik over tot het plaatsen van alleen het eerste stukje. Ja ik weet het: de kans dat u doorklikt is geringer dan wanneer het hele artikel hier staat en een kopie van het orgineel maken handig kan zijn voor uw zaak. Wilt u zelf wat overnemen van dit weblog. Dat mag. Zet er alleen even een link bij naar het desbetreffende artikel zodat mensen niet alleen dat wat u knipt en plakt kunnen lezen maar dat ook kunnen doen in de context.
Reacties