CJEU Case C-454/23 / Judgment
-
CJEU Case C-454/23 / Judgment
Key facts of the case:
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Asylum policy – International protection – Directive 2011/95/EU – Refugee status – Article 14(4)(a) and (5) – Revocation or refusal to grant refugee status in the event of danger to the security of the host Member State – Conduct and acts prior to the entry of the applicant into the territory of the host Member State – Admissibility – Validity – Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 78(1) TFEU – Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (‘Geneva Convention’)
Outcome of the case:
On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby rules:
- Article 14(4)(a) and (5) of 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, read in conjunction with Article 78(1) TFEU and Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may revoke refugee status or decide not to grant it where the reasonable grounds for regarding the refugee as a danger to the security of that Member State, within the meaning of Article 14(4)(a) of that directive, are based on acts or conduct of that person prior to his or her entry into the territory of that Member State. It is irrelevant that those acts and that conduct do not constitute grounds for exclusion from being a refugee expressly provided for in Article 1(F) of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, signed in Geneva on 28 July 1951, which entered into force on 22 April 1954, as supplemented by the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, concluded in New York on 31 January 1967 and which entered into force on 4 October 1967, and in Article 12 of that directive. In order to assess, first, the level of seriousness of the danger justifying the revocation of refugee status or the refusal to grant that status and, secondly, the consequences of that revocation or refusal for the refugee’s situation, there is no need to refer to the conditions applicable to the concept of ‘danger to the security of the country’ to which Article 33(2) of that convention refers or to the resulting serious consequences for that refugee.
- Consideration of Article 14(4)(a) and (5) of Directive 2011/95 has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of that provision in the light of Article 78(1) TFEU and Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter
39. By its first and third questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 14(4)(a) and (5) of Directive 2011/95, read in conjunction with Article 78(1) TFEU and Article 18 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may revoke refugee status or decide not to grant it where the reasonable grounds for regarding the refugee as a danger to the security of that Member State are based on acts or conduct of that refugee prior to his or her entry into the territory of that Member State, having regard, first, to the fact that those acts and that conduct do not constitute grounds for exclusion from being a refugee expressly provided for in Article 1(F) of the Geneva Convention and Article 12 of that directive and, second, to the conditions applicable to the concept of ‘danger to the security of the country’ to which Article 33(2) of that convention refers and the resulting serious consequences for the refugee.
...
56. In that regard, it is settled case-law that, although the European Union is not a contracting party to the Geneva Convention, Article 78(1) TFEU and Article 18 of the Charter nonetheless require it to observe the rules of that convention. Directive 2011/95 must, therefore, be interpreted in a manner consistent with the Geneva Convention and the other relevant treaties referred to in Article 78(1) TFEU and the rights recognised in the Charter, specifically in Article 18 thereof (see, to that effect, judgments of 1 March 2016, Alo and Osso, C‑443/14 and C‑444/14, EU:C:2016:127, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited, and of 14 May 2019, M and Others (Revocation of refugee status), C‑391/16, C‑77/17 and C‑78/17, EU:C:2019:403, paragraph 74).
...
60. However, where the refoulement of a refugee covered by one of the scenarios referred to in Article 14(4) and (5) and Article 21(2) of Directive 2011/95 would expose that refugee to the risk of infringement of his or her fundamental rights enshrined in Article 4 and Article 19(2) of the Charter, which prohibit in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the conduct of the person concerned, as well as removal to a State where there is a serious risk that a person will be subjected to such treatment, the Member State concerned may not derogate from the principle of non-refoulement under Article 33(2) of the Geneva Convention (see, to that effect, judgment of 14 May 2019, M and Others (Revocation of refugee status), C‑391/16, C‑77/17 and C‑78/17, EU:C:2019:403, paragraphs 94 and 95).
...
66. It follows from all of the foregoing that the answer to the first and third questions is that Article 14(4)(a) and (5) of Directive 2011/95, read in conjunction with Article 78(1) TFEU and Article 18 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may revoke refugee status or decide not to grant it where the reasonable grounds for regarding the refugee as a danger to the security of that Member State, within the meaning of Article 14(4)(a) of that directive, are based on acts or conduct of that person prior to his or her entry into the territory of that Member State. It is irrelevant that those acts and that conduct do not constitute grounds for exclusion from being a refugee expressly provided for in Article 1(F) of the Geneva Convention and Article 12 of that directive. In order to assess, first, the level of seriousness of the danger justifying the revocation of refugee status or the refusal to grant that status and, secondly, the consequences of that revocation or refusal for the refugee’s situation, there is no need to refer to the conditions applicable to the concept of ‘danger to the security of the country’ to which Article 33(2) of that convention refers or to the resulting serious consequences for that refugee.
67. By its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether, if the first and third questions are answered in the affirmative, Article 14(4)(a) and (5) of Directive 2011/95 is valid in the light of Article 78(1) TFEU and Article 18 of the Charter, in so far as the latter provisions require compliance with the Geneva Convention and, in particular, with Article 1(F) thereof.
68. As a preliminary point, it should be recalled that, under Article 78(1) TFEU and Article 18 of the Charter, Directive 2011/95 must comply with the rules of the Geneva Convention (see, to that effect, judgment of 14 May 2019, M and Others (Revocation of refugee status), C‑391/16, C‑77/17 and C‑78/17, EU:C:2019:403, paragraph 74 and the case-law cited).
...
71. Moreover, it should be noted that, in that judgment, the Court concluded that consideration of Article 14(4) to (6) of Directive 2011/95 has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of those provisions in the light of Article 78(1) TFEU and Article 18 of the Charter (judgment of 14 May 2019, M and Others (Revocation of refugee status), C‑391/16, C‑77/17 and C‑78/17, EU:C:2019:403, paragraph 112). It follows from the foregoing that the examination of Article 14(4)(a) and (5) of that directive, in the present case, has not revealed any new factor capable of calling that conclusion into question in so far as it relates to those provisions.
72. Having regard to all the foregoing considerations, it must be concluded that consideration of Article 14(4)(a) and (5) of Directive 2011/95 has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of that provision in the light of Article 78(1) TFEU and Article 18 of the Charter.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)