Abstract

On 1st March 2016, the European Court of Justice (ECJ), on request for a preliminary ruling by the "Bundesverwaltungsgericht" (German Supreme Administrative Court), handed down a judgment concerning the compatibility with the Directive 2011/95/EU ('Qualification Directive') of a restriction on the right to choose the place of residence imposed on beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. The Court's findings deserve consideration since they provide for the first time an interpretation of articles 29 and 33 of the Directive, both relating to the 'content of the protection'. This paper critically investigates the ECJ's interpretive approach adopted in this case by focusing in particular on two different aspects of the judgment. On the one hand, the Court correctly interpreted the relevant provisions in light of the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees. On the other hand, however, the Court did not take into account the fundamental rights framework, which, it is argued, should be guide the ECJ when assessing the content of fundamental rights of beneficiaries of international protection also enshrined in relevant human rights instruments.