'Manquer' translates well to 'miss' when you miss the bus or a target, you're lacking something ('cette veste manque un bouton') or a quality ('il manque de courage'). Manquer has also a passive meaning (Pierre manque -> Pierre is missing) but Google's problem here is different.

>'Il me manque' = 'he's missing to me' This seems logical to me. The French 'me' in this case is a dative or 'indirect object' form.

>He's missing me (while shooting at me) = il me manque The French 'me' in this case is an accusative or 'direct object' form.

The passive voice 'Je suis manqué par lui' = 'I am missed by him' /'Il est manqué par moi' = 'He is missed by me' would be unusual in French and necessarily 'directly transitive', so referring to missing someone with a pistol for example.

The difference between the two can be made by using the 3rd person or the indirect complement. >Il me manque (I long for him) => Il lui manque (he/she misses him, the dative 'lui' being epicene) >Il me manque (He missed me, as with a pistol) => il le manque (he misses him, as with a pistol)

'Il me manque' (I long for him) can be developed into 'Il manque à moi' (he's missing to me). 'Il me manque' (he misses me while shooting at me) cannot. This intuitive trick is taught to children so they can make the difference in more complicated cases, but it doesn't work well with second language students.

Weird translations...

I miss him => Il me manque.

He misses me => Je lui manque.

Passive forms aren't used. However you may use the quite old-fashioned "languir" as an alternative form:

I am missed by him => Il se languit de moi.

He is missed by me => Je me languit de lui.

I don't speak French, but in Italian you can't have intransitive passive verbs. `manque` is intransitive, `me` in not a direct object.

I'd expect French and Italian to be similar here.