CJEU Case C-202/25 / Judgment
-
CJEU Case C-202/25 / Judgment
Key facts of the case:
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals – Directive 2008/115/EC – Revocation of subsidiary protection status – Public order – Principle of non-refoulement – Possibility of adopting a return decision
Outcome of the case:
On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby rules:
Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in conjunction with Articles 3 and 6 of that directive and with Article 17(1) and Article 19(3)(a) 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,
must be interpreted as precluding the adoption of a return decision in respect of a third-country national whose subsidiary protection status has been revoked, where it is established that the removal of that third-country national to the intended country of destination is precluded by virtue of the principle of non-refoulement.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter
26. The referring court considers that an interpretation contrary to the one it envisages would have significant consequences. In particular, such an interpretation would allow the persons concerned to continue to rely on the rights provided for in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/115, it would undermine the grounds for revocation of international protection set out in Directive 2011/95, in particular by not leading to the departure from the territory of the European Union of persons who represent a threat to public order, and it would prevent an alert relating to those persons from being entered in the SIS.
...
35. Article 5 of Directive 2008/115, which is a general rule binding on the Member States as soon as they implement that directive, obliges, inter alia, the competent national authority to observe at all stages of the return procedure the principle of non-refoulement, which is guaranteed as a fundamental right in Article 18 of the Charter read in conjunction with Article 33 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)), and in Article 19(2) of the Charter. That is the case, in particular, where that authority is contemplating, after hearing the person concerned, the adoption of a return decision in relation to that person (see, to that effect, judgments of 22 November 2022, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Removal – Medicinal cannabis), C‑69/21, EU:C:2022:913, paragraph 55, and of 6 July 2023, Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl (Refugee who has committed a serious crime), C‑663/21, EU:C:2023:540, paragraph 49).
36. Therefore, Article 5 of Directive 2008/115 precludes a third-country national from being the subject of a return decision where that decision concerns, as the country of destination, a country in respect of which substantial grounds have been shown for believing that, if that decision is implemented, that third-country national would be exposed to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 18 or Article 19(2) of the Charter (judgments of 22 November 2022, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Removal – Medicinal cannabis), C‑69/21, EU:C:2022:913, paragraph 56, and of 6 July 2023, Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl (Refugee who has committed a serious crime), C‑663/21, EU:C:2023:540, paragraph 50).
...
53. Article 4 and Article 19(2) of the Charter 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 may be subjected to such treatment. Therefore, Member States may not remove, expel or extradite a foreign national where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she will face a genuine risk, in the country of destination, of being subjected to treatment prohibited by Article 4 and Article 19(2) of the Charter (see, to that effect, judgments 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 94, and of 6 July 2023, Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl (Refugee who has committed a serious crime), C‑663/21, EU:C:2023:540, paragraph 36).
...
57. Accordingly, the exclusion, in a situation such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, of the adoption of a return decision designating the country of origin of the person concerned as the country of destination or not designating a country of destination does not in any way preclude the competent authority from adopting a return decision designating a country of destination falling within the second or third indent of point 3 of Article 3 of Directive 2008/115 and, if necessary, from subsequently removing the third-country national concerned, thereby ensuring the departure of the third-country national concerned from the territory of the Member State in question, in full compliance with the requirements of Article 5 of that directive and the Charter.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)