{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-564-21","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-564-21)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-23","fingerprint":"ewai:eu:b67bfc","proof":"sha256:79bce4ffe6a2f6929adaf272edfba59010d99ca0c15d1830900ba030d059e259","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"eu:c-564-21","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"62021CJ0564","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Tenth Chamber)","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"1 December 2022 (\n *1\n )","paragraphs":["para_4","para_5","para_6"]},{"title":"BU","paragraphs":["para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25"]},{"title":"Judgment","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"1","paragraphs":["para_28"]},{"title":"2","paragraphs":["para_30"]},{"title":"The legal framework","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"European Union law","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"3","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"According to recitals 25 and 50 of Directive 2013/32:","paragraphs":["para_35","para_36","para_37"]},{"title":"(50)","paragraphs":["para_39"]},{"title":"4","paragraphs":["para_41","para_42"]},{"title":"5","paragraphs":["para_44","para_45"]},{"title":"6","paragraphs":["para_47","para_48"]},{"title":"(a)","paragraphs":["para_50","para_51"]},{"title":"7","paragraphs":["para_53","para_54"]},{"title":"(a)","paragraphs":["para_56"]},{"title":"(i)","paragraphs":["para_58","para_59","para_60"]},{"title":"German law","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The Law on the right of asylum","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"8","paragraphs":["para_64","para_65"]},{"title":"The Code of Administrative Justice","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"9","paragraphs":["para_68","para_69"]},{"title":"The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"10","paragraphs":["para_72"]},{"title":"11","paragraphs":["para_74"]},{"title":"12","paragraphs":["para_76"]},{"title":"13","paragraphs":["para_78"]},{"title":"14","paragraphs":["para_80"]},{"title":"15","paragraphs":["para_82"]},{"title":"16","paragraphs":["para_84"]},{"title":"17","paragraphs":["para_86"]},{"title":"18","paragraphs":["para_88"]},{"title":"19","paragraphs":["para_90"]},{"title":"20","paragraphs":["para_92"]},{"title":"21","paragraphs":["para_94"]},{"title":"22","paragraphs":["para_96"]},{"title":"23","paragraphs":["para_98"]},{"title":"24","paragraphs":["para_100","para_101","para_102"]},{"title":"(2)","paragraphs":["para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108"]},{"title":"The questions referred for a preliminary ruling","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Admissibility of the questions referred","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"25","paragraphs":["para_112"]},{"title":"26","paragraphs":["para_114"]},{"title":"27","paragraphs":["para_116"]},{"title":"28","paragraphs":["para_118"]},{"title":"29","paragraphs":["para_120"]},{"title":"30","paragraphs":["para_122"]},{"title":"31","paragraphs":["para_124"]},{"title":"32","paragraphs":["para_126"]},{"title":"The first and second questions","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"33","paragraphs":["para_129"]},{"title":"34","paragraphs":["para_131"]},{"title":"35","paragraphs":["para_133"]},{"title":"36","paragraphs":["para_135"]},{"title":"37","paragraphs":["para_137"]},{"title":"38","paragraphs":["para_139"]},{"title":"39","paragraphs":["para_141"]},{"title":"40","paragraphs":["para_143"]},{"title":"41","paragraphs":["para_145"]},{"title":"42","paragraphs":["para_147"]},{"title":"43","paragraphs":["para_149"]},{"title":"44","paragraphs":["para_151"]},{"title":"45","paragraphs":["para_153"]},{"title":"46","paragraphs":["para_155"]},{"title":"47","paragraphs":["para_157"]},{"title":"48","paragraphs":["para_159"]},{"title":"49","paragraphs":["para_161"]},{"title":"50","paragraphs":["para_163"]},{"title":"51","paragraphs":["para_165"]},{"title":"52","paragraphs":["para_167"]},{"title":"53","paragraphs":["para_169"]},{"title":"54","paragraphs":["para_171"]},{"title":"55","paragraphs":["para_173"]},{"title":"56","paragraphs":["para_175"]},{"title":"The third and fourth questions","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"57","paragraphs":["para_178"]},{"title":"58","paragraphs":["para_180"]},{"title":"59","paragraphs":["para_182"]},{"title":"60","paragraphs":["para_184"]},{"title":"61","paragraphs":["para_186"]},{"title":"62","paragraphs":["para_188"]},{"title":"63","paragraphs":["para_190"]},{"title":"Costs","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"64","paragraphs":["para_193"]},{"title":"On those grounds, the Court (Tenth Chamber) hereby rules:","paragraphs":["para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199"]},{"title":"Article 11(1) of Directive 2013/32","paragraphs":["para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204"]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"62021CJ0564","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Tenth Chamber)","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"1 December 2022 (\n *1\n )","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"Reference for a preliminary ruling – Fundamental rights – Right to an effective remedy – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Asylum policy – Directive 2013/32/EU – Article 11(1), Article 23(1) and Article 46(1) and (3) – Access to information in the applicant’s fi …","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"In Case C‑564/21,","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Administrative Court, Wiesbaden, Germany), made by decision of 3 September 2021, received at the Court on 14 September 2021, in the proceedings","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"BU","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"v","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"Federal Republic of Germany,","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"THE COURT (Tenth Chamber),","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"composed of D. Gratsias (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, I. Jarukaitis and Z. Csehi, Judges,","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Advocate General: N. Emiliou,","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"having regard to the written procedure,","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"BU, by J. Leuschner, Rechtsanwalt,","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"the German Government, by J. Möller and A. Hoesch, acting as Agents,","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"the Hungarian Government, by M.Z. Fehér and R. Kissné Berta, acting as Agents,","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"the European Commission, by F. Erlbacher and L. Grønfeldt, acting as Agents,","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"gives the following","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"Judgment","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"1","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 11(1), Article 23(1), Article 45(1)(a) and Article 46(1) to (3) 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 ( OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60 ), as well as Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"2","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"The request has been made in proceedings between BU, an asylum seeker, and the Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany), represented by the Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, Germany) (‘the BAMF’), concerning the rejection of the appli …","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"The legal framework","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"European Union law","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"3","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"According to recitals 25 and 50 of Directive 2013/32:","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"‘(25)","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"In the interests of a correct recognition of those persons in need of protection as refugees within the meaning of Article 1 of the …Convention [relating to the Status of Refugees, signed in Geneva on 28 July 1951 ( United Nations Treaty Series , vol. 189, p. 150, No 2545 (1954)), as supplemented by …","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"(50)","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"It reflects a basic principle of Union law that the decisions taken on an application for international protection, the decisions concerning a refusal to reopen the examination of an application after its discontinuation, and the decisions on the withdrawal of refugee or subsidiary protection status are subject to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal.’","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"4","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"Article 11 of that directive, entitled ‘Requirements for a decision by the determining authority’, provides in paragraph 1 thereof:","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"‘Member States shall ensure that decisions on applications for international protection are given in writing.’","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"5","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"Article 23 of that directive, entitled ‘Scope of legal assistance and representation’, provides in paragraph 1 thereof :","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"‘Member States shall ensure that a legal adviser or other counsellor admitted or permitted as such under national law, who assists or represents an applicant under the terms of national law, shall enjoy access to the information in the applicant’s file upon the basis of which a decision is or will be made.’","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"6","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"Article 45 of that directive, entitled ‘Procedural rules’, provides in paragraph 1 thereof:","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"‘Member States shall ensure that, where the competent authority is considering withdrawing international protection from a third-country national or stateless person in accordance with Article 14 or 19 of Directive 2011/95/EU [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on stan …","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"(a)","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"to be informed in writing that the competent authority is reconsidering his or her qualification as a beneficiary of international protection and the reasons for such a reconsideration; …","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"7","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"Article 46 of Directive 2013/32, entitled ‘The right to an effective remedy’, provides in paragraphs 1 and 3 thereof:","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"‘1.   Member States shall ensure that applicants have the right to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal, against the following:","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"(a)","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"a decision taken on their application for international protection, including a decision:","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"(i)","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"considering an application to be unfounded in relation to refugee status and/or subsidiary protection status;","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"3.   In order to comply with paragraph 1, Member States shall ensure that an effective remedy provides for a full and ex nunc examination of both facts and points of law, including, where applicable, an examination of the international protection needs pursuant to Directive [2011/95], at least in appeals procedures before a court or tribunal of first instance.’","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"German law","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"The Law on the right of asylum","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"8","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"Paragraph 31 of the Asylgesetz (Asylum Act) of 26 June 1992 (BGBl. 1992 I, p. 1126), as published on 2 September 2008 (BGBl. 2008 I, p. 1798), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, entitled ‘Decision of the Federal Office on asylum applications’, provides, in subparagraph 1:","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"‘Decisions of the Federal Office shall be given in writing. They shall contain a written statement of reasons. Decisions open to challenge shall be served on the parties concerned without undue delay. …’","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"The Code of Administrative Justice","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"9","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"Paragraph 99 of the Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung (Code of Administrative Justice) of 21 January 1960 (BGBl. 1960 I, p. 17), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, provides, in subparagraph 1:","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"‘Authorities shall be obliged to submit certificates or files, to transmit electronic documents and to provide information. If disclosure of the contents of those certificates, files, electronic documents or that information would prove disadvantageous to the interests of the Federation or of a Land …","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"10","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"The applicant in the main proceedings submitted an application for international protection which was rejected by the BAMF by decision of 18 December 2019 (‘the decision of 18 December 2019’). That decision was based, in particular, on the opinion of an officer of the BAMF responsible for matters specific to the country of which BU is a national. The content of that opinion has been quoted in the statement of facts in that decision.","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"11","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"In accordance with the BAMF’s administrative practice, the officer who decided on the applicant’s application for international protection in the main proceedings affixed his handwritten signature to the decision of 18 December 2019, scanned that decision and saved the document resulting from the sc …","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"12","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"The applicant in the main proceedings brought an action before the referring court against the decision of 18 December 2019.","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"13","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"In the course of the dispute in the main proceedings, the BAMF responded by producing the electronic file of the applicant in the main proceedings, supplemented by that opinion, in the form of several separate documents in PDF format and a set of structural data in XML (Extensible Markup Language) f …","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"14","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"The representative of the applicant in the main proceedings requested that the BAMF provide him with the applicant’s complete administrative file in the form of a single file in PDF format with consecutive page numbering. Following the rejection of that request, he applied to the referring court for interim measures in that regard.","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"15","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"The BAMF argued in that regard that a file does not have to be transferred to the persons concerned in the same format as it is before that administration. It argued that the provision of the content of the files under EU law can also be carried out by granting the applicant access for consultation. …","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"16","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"First, the referring court considers that the claim of the applicant’s representative in the main proceedings is well founded, since the applicant’s electronic file is neither accessible nor produced in its entirety, pursuant to Paragraph 99(1) of the Code of Administrative Justice.","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"17","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"In that regard, the referring court considers that proper record-keeping by the administration is essential to guarantee the transparency of public action and the possibility of monitoring that action, so that the obligation of a democratic State governed by the rule of law to be accountable is sati …","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"18","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"The printed part of the electronic administrative file managed by the BAMF, which was communicated to the referring court, does not include the entire content of that file. The referring court considers it essential that the metadata of the file, such as access to the file, insertions and deletions …","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"19","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"Ultimately, the referring court considers that the applicant’s representative and the competent court should have online access to the entire administrative file of the person concerned, as held by the administration. Only on that condition would the requirement in Article 23 of Directive 2013/32, according to which the asylum seeker’s representative must have access to ‘information in the applicant’s file’, and the principle of the right to a fair trial be respected.","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"20","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"Secondly, the referring court notes that it is not the originals of the administrative acts concerned that are communicated. According to the administrative practice of the BAMF, those originals, bearing the signature of the author of the decision concerned, must first be scanned and then destroyed, so that only an electronic copy of them ultimately remains.","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"21","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"The referring court considers that the requirement laid down in Article 11(1) of Directive 2013/32 that a decision on an application for asylum must be communicated in writing implies, in principle, the handwritten signature of the author of that decision. It notes that such an interpretation corres …","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"22","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"Thus, the referring court considers that, in the event that the original of a decision on an asylum application is destroyed and only a scanned copy of that decision remains, the latter does not have the written character required by Directive 2013/32. In particular, while a copy may have the legal appearance of a reproduction of the original of the administrative act concerned, its integrity is not certain.","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"23","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"Finally, the referring court questions whether, where the original of an administrative act has been destroyed, the fact that only a copy of that act remains can give rise to its annulment and whether, in the present case, it should not reject the request of the representative of the applicant in the main proceedings for access to the entire administrative file of the person concerned and order the BAMF, in the context of the main proceedings, to adopt a new written decision.","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"24","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"In those circumstances, the national court decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"‘(1)","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"Does it follow from the right to a fair trial under Article 47 of [the Charter] that the administrative file to be submitted by the authority in the context of an inspection of files or a judicial review is to be submitted in such a way – even where it is in electronic form – that it is complete and paginated, and changes are therefore traceable?","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"(2)","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"Do Articles 23(1) and 46(1) to (3) of Directive [2013/32] preclude a national administrative practice according to which, as a general rule, the authority provides the asylum seeker’s legal representative and the [national] court with only an extract taken from an electronic document management syst …","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"3.","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"Does it follow from Articles 11(1) and 45(1)(a) of Directive [2013/32] that a decision must be signed by hand by the decision-maker of the determining authority, kept on file or served on the applicant also as a document signed by hand?","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"4.","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"Is the handwritten form within the meaning of Articles 11(1) and 45(1)(a) of Directive [2013/32] respected where the decision is signed by the decision-maker but then scanned and the original destroyed, that is to say, the decision exists in writing only to a certain extent?’","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"The questions referred for a preliminary ruling","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"Admissibility of the questions referred","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"25","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"According to the Court’s settled case-law, it is for the national court alone, which is seised of the dispute and which must assume responsibility for the judicial decision to be taken, to assess, in the light of the particular features of the case, both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to …","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"26","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"In the first place, in its written observations, the German Government expresses its doubts as to the relevance of the first and second questions, in so far as they concern the scope of the right of access to the file. Those doubts are based on the consideration that access to the metadata, which is at issue in the main proceedings, is not necessary for the referring court to rule on the merits of the decision rejecting the application for international protection before it.","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"27","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"It is clear from the reference for a preliminary ruling that the referring court did not make the reference to the Court in order to rule on the legality of that rejection decision, but in order to rule on the applicant’s application for interim measures in the main proceedings, seeking the producti …","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"28","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"In the second place, in its written observations, the European Commission also questions the relevance of the first and second questions. It states that it does not understand the relationship between the principle of the right to a fair trial and the facts or the subject matter of the main proceedi …","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"29","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"First, as regards the considerations of the referring court relating to the principle of the right to a fair trial, it is apparent from the grounds of the request for a preliminary ruling that that court considers that that principle, enshrined in the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, r …","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"30","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"Secondly, as regards the Commission’s interpretation of the first and second questions, according to which those questions seek, in particular, to determine whether EU law precludes a national practice requiring the representative of the applicant for international protection to download software in …","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"31","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"Therefore, the first and second questions are admissible.","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"32","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"In the third place, however, it must be noted that, as regards the third and fourth questions, it may be observed that, in so far as the decision contested by the applicant in the main proceedings is a decision rejecting his application for international protection, the outcome of the dispute in the …","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"The first and second questions","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"33","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"By its first and second questions, which should be considered together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 23(1) and Article 46(1) and (3) of Directive 2013/32, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding a national administrative practice und …","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"34","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"In that regard, first of all, it should be noted that Article 23(1) of Directive 2013/32 implements the right of access to the file in proceedings concerning applications for international protection by providing that the legal adviser who assists or represents the applicant has access to the information in the applicant’s file on the basis of which a decision is or will be taken.","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"35","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"Next, as regards Article 46(1) and (3) of Directive 2013/32, that provision implements the principle of effective judicial protection by providing that Member States are to ensure that an effective remedy provides for a full and ex nunc examination of both the facts and the legal issues, including, where appropriate, an examination of international protection needs under Directive 2011/95, at least in the context of appeal proceedings before a court of first instance.","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"36","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"Finally, it should be noted that, in the context of the protection of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by EU law and the right to effective judicial protection, the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter guarantees the right to a fair trial, a particular aspect of which is respect for the r …","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"37","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"However, it is settled case-law that fundamental rights, such as respect for the rights of the defence under Article 47, including the right to disclosure of documents relevant to the defence, are not absolute prerogatives, but may be subject to restrictions, provided that such restrictions effectiv …","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"38","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"With regard specifically to the right of access to the file, it is well established in the case-law that that right implies that the person against whom an act adversely affecting him or her has been adopted must be given the opportunity to examine all the documents in the investigation file that ar …","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"39","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"As to the documents which must be included in the investigation file, it should be noted that it also follows from the Court’s case-law that, while it cannot be for the authority which took the decision complained of alone to determine which documents are useful for the defence of the person concern …","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"40","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"The Court has further held that the existence of a breach of the rights of the defence, including the right of access to the file, must be assessed in the light of the specific circumstances of each case, in particular the nature of the measure at issue, the context in which it was adopted and the legal rules governing the matter concerned (judgment of 16 May 2017, Berlioz Investment Fund, C‑682/15 , EU:C:2017:373 , paragraph  97 and the case-law cited).","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"41","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"More specifically, since the first and second questions relate to access to the file in the context of judicial proceedings, it should be noted that, having regard to the precise requirements laid down in Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, the case file which is transmitted to the competent court, …","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"42","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"Furthermore, the scope of judicial review of a decision on an application for international protection necessarily has a decisive impact on the required extent of access to the file to enable the person concerned to exercise his or her rights of defence effectively.","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"43","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"Subject to the elements for which the authority concerned requests confidentiality, for duly explained objectives of public interest, such as those referred to in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the present judgment, and to documents which are not relevant to the outcome of the application for international …","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"44","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"Furthermore, such a right of access to the file may also include access to the metadata of the applicant’s administrative file, namely, data which are part of the structure of that file and which are intended to describe, explain, locate or otherwise facilitate access to its content. It cannot be ex …","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"45","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"As regards the format in which the various elements of the file are communicated to the applicant’s representative and their structure, it should be noted at the outset that the wording of Article 23(1) and Article 46(1) and (3) of Directive 2013/32 does not contain any rules expressly governing the practical and technical arrangements for access to the file by the applicant’s representative.","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"46","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"As is apparent, moreover, from the case-law referred to in paragraph 37 of the present judgment, the protection of the rights of the defence under Article 47 of the Charter, including the right of access to the file, implies that the national legislation or practice concerned does not constitute a disproportionate and intolerable interference with the very substance of the rights thus guaranteed.","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"47","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"In the present case, as noted in paragraph 13 of the present judgment, in accordance with the relevant national administrative practice, the applicant’s representative received the electronic file of the applicant in the main proceedings, in the form of several separate documents in PDF format and a …","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"48","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"The referring court considers that, unlike the communication of a single file in PDF format with consecutive page numbering, a method of communication such as that used by the BAMF does not make it possible to keep track of changes in the administrative file of the applicant in the main proceedings …","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"49","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"For its part, in its written observations, the German Government maintains that the structural data accompanying the individual files in PDF format make it possible, with the aid of appropriate software, to reproduce the organisation of the original file. In addition, the names of the individual fil …","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"50","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"In that regard, it follows from the case-law referred to in paragraphs 38, 39 and 43 of the present judgment that, in order to determine whether a method of communication of the case file, such as that adopted by the BAMF, complies with the right of access to the file, as protected by Article 47 of …","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"51","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"Furthermore, it should be pointed out that the existence of a single technical solution capable of guaranteeing the effectiveness of the rights of the defence and effective judicial protection, in accordance with Article 47 of the Charter, cannot be presumed. In the absence of a uniform standard at …","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"52","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"It cannot, in particular, be ruled out that the transmission of the file concerned in the form of individual files in PDF format may ensure, in a way equivalent to the transmission of a single file in that format with consecutive page numbering, the effectiveness of the applicant’s rights of defence …","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"53","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"In particular, the referring court may verify that the software used to visualise the structure of the procedural file communicated by the national authority competent to decide on the applicant’s application for international protection guarantees the representative of the latter a representation o …","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"54","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"In addition, it will have to check whether, as the German Government suggests in its written observations, the structural data and PDF files by means of which the applicant’s file is communicated to his representative provide sufficient information to understand the structure of that file and whethe …","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"55","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"Moreover, it should be noted that it does not appear, subject to verification by the referring court, that the need, for the applicant’s representative, to download such software in order to be able to view the structure of that applicant’s file in chronological order constitutes, in itself, a disproportionate and intolerable intervention capable of undermining the very substance of the latter’s rights of defence.","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"56","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first and second questions is that Article 23(1) and Article 46(1) and (3) of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as not precluding a national administrative practice whereby th …","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"The third and fourth questions","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"57","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"By its third and fourth questions, which must be considered together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 11(1) of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as meaning that a decision on an application for international protection must bear the handwritten signature of the official of …","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"58","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"It should be noted at the outset that the requirement that the decision on an application for international protection be communicated in writing, referred to in Article 11(1) of Directive 2013/32, does not imply an obligation that that decision be signed by the author thereof.","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"59","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"It follows from the case-law that the obligation to produce an act, in particular a decision adversely affecting a person, in written form, which is provided for in a large number of cases by EU law (see judgments of 5 June 2014, Mahdi, C‑146/14 PPU , EU:C:2014:1320 , paragraphs  41 to  49 and the c …","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"60","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"By contrast, the requirement that the decision be signed by the author, either by hand or by electronic signature, does not automatically follow from the written form of that decision.","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"61","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"Although the requirement that an individual act adversely affecting an individual be communicated in writing and the requirement that such an act be signed by its author, namely, by the person authorised by the competent authority to make it, both meet the objectives of legal certainty and protectio …","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"62","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"In view of those considerations, it is not necessary to answer the question whether Article 11(1) of Directive 2013/32 precludes an administrative practice of scanning the signed original of a decision on an application for international protection, subsequently destroying it and retaining the scanned version of that decision in an electronic file.","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"63","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the third and fourth questions is that Article 11(1) of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as meaning that a decision on an application for international protection does not need to be signed by the official of the competent authority who took that decision in order for it to be considered to be communicated in writing within the meaning of that provision.","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"Costs","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"64","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"On those grounds, the Court (Tenth Chamber) hereby rules:","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"1.","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"Article 23(1) and Article 46(1) and (3) 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, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"must be interpreted as meaning that:","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"they do not preclude a national administrative practice whereby the administrative authority which has decided on an application for international protection provides the applicant’s representative with a copy of the electronic file relating to that application in the form of a series of separate fi …","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"2.","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"Article 11(1) of Directive 2013/32","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"must be interpreted as meaning that:","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"a decision on an application for international protection does not need to be signed by the official of the competent authority who took that decision in order for it to be considered to be communicated in writing within the meaning of that provision.","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"[Signatures]","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"(\n *1\n ) Language of the case: German.","paragraph_id":"para_204"}],"word_count":7534,"cites":["C-309/19","C-485/19","C-358/16","C-682/15","C-300/11","C-49/11","C-146/14","C-808/18","C-258/16","C-833/19"],"sha256":"b43ca0edfbb684a24190bbda2dc03a2b47495d72f0b43bab6eb518d150a46d2b","source_url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62021CJ0564.ENG.xhtml.ECR_62021CJ0564_EN_01.html","fetched_at":"2026-10-12T21:23:34.381+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/c-564-21","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-564-21","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-564-21","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-564-21","verification":{"stored_sha256":"b43ca0edfbb684a24190bbda2dc03a2b47495d72f0b43bab6eb518d150a46d2b","recomputed_sha256":"b43ca0edfbb684a24190bbda2dc03a2b47495d72f0b43bab6eb518d150a46d2b","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-24T13:02:32.417Z"}},"hash":"sha256:79bce4ffe6a2f6929adaf272edfba59010d99ca0c15d1830900ba030d059e259","version":"legal-2026-10-23","expires":"2026-10-25T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-23+legal-2026-10-23+2026-10-23T14:34:08","content_hash":"sha256:79bce4ffe6a2f6929adaf272edfba59010d99ca0c15d1830900ba030d059e259","revalidate_after":"2026-10-24T14:02:32.742Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-564-21","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-564-21"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-564-21"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-564-21"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=eu"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"withheld":{"item.cited_by":1},"access":{"status":"partner_key_required","header":"x-partner-key","contact":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/kontakt","note":"Facts and counts are public. Relationships and decision paths stay inside NovaCopilot."},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/eu/praxis/c-564-21","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-61dd2095a627ed9d031e20313431c5ee","response_hash":"sha256:79bce4ffe6a2f6929adaf272edfba59010d99ca0c15d1830900ba030d059e259"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T08:57:06.370Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu%3Ac-564-21&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":14005}}