CJEU Case C-352/22 / Judgment

A. v. Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Hamm
Policy area
Asylum and migration
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Court (Grand Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
18/06/2024
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2024:521
  • CJEU Case C-352/22 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Directive 2011/95/EU – Article 21(1) – Directive 2013/32/EU – Article 9(2) and (3) – Definitive grant of refugee status by a Member State – Refugee residing in another Member State after that grant – Request for extradition submitted by the third State of origin of that refugee to the Member State of residence – Effect of the decision granting refugee status on the extradition procedure concerned – Article 18 and Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Protection of that refugee against the extradition sought

    Outcome of the case:

    On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:

    Article 21(1) 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 18 and Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

    must be interpreted as meaning that, where a third-country national who has been granted refugee status in one Member State is the subject, in another Member State, on whose territory he or she resides, of an extradition request from his or her country of origin, the requested Member State cannot authorise extradition unless it has initiated an exchange of information with the authority that granted the requested individual refugee status and where that status has not been revoked by that authority.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    51. Secondly, Article 21(1) of Directive 2011/95, which is in Chapter VII entitled ‘Content of international protection’, refers to the obligation of Member States to respect the principle of non-refoulement in accordance with their international obligations. That provision is thus a specific expression of the principle of non-refoulement, which is guaranteed, as a fundamental right, in Article 18 and in Article 19(2) of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 33 of the Geneva Convention (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). 

    52. As it is, in so far as the decision of a Member State to allow a request for extradition issued by the State of origin in respect of a third-country national, such as A., who has been granted refugee status in another Member State in accordance with the rules of secondary EU law on international protection would have the effect of depriving that third-country national of the rights and benefits laid down in Chapter VII of Directive 2011/95, it must be noted that the extradition procedure conducted in the first Member State involves the implementation of EU law, for the purposes of Article 51(1) of the Charter. 

    53. Accordingly, the fundamental rights affirmed by the Charter, particularly those guaranteed in Article 18 and in Article 19(2), must be fully respected by the Member State authority responsible for examining an extradition request from a third State in respect of a third-country national who has been granted refugee status in another Member State. 

    54. It is necessary therefore to determine whether Article 21(1) of Directive 2011/95, read in conjunction with Article 18 and Article 19(2) of the Charter, precludes extradition in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings. 

    55. In that regard, it must be stated at the outset that the competent extradition authority of the requested Member State cannot authorise the extradition to a third country of a national of that third country who has been granted refugee status by another Member State if that extradition would be contrary to Article 21(1) of Directive 2011/95, read in conjunction with Article 18 and Article 19(2) of the Charter. 

    56. As regards the latter provisions specifically, first, according to Article 18 of the Charter, ‘the right to asylum shall be guaranteed with due respect for the rules of the [Geneva Convention,] the [Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees] and in accordance with the [EU Treaty] and the [FEU Treaty]’. 

    ... 

    ... 

    58. As the Advocate General stated in point 47 of his Opinion, as long as the requested individual satisfies the criteria for being a refugee, within the meaning of Article 2(d) of Directive 2011/95 and Article 1(A) of the Geneva Convention, an extradition of that individual to his or her third country of origin would have the effect of depriving that individual of the effective enjoyment of the right afforded to him or her by Article 18 of the Charter. Therefore, as long as that individual qualifies as a refugee, Article 18 of the Charter precludes the extradition of that individual to the third country which he or she fled and in which he or she risks being persecuted. 

    59. In the present case, this means that as long as there is a risk that A. may suffer political persecution – because of which he was granted refugee status by the Italian authorities – in his third State of origin which submitted the extradition request, A.’s extradition to that third State must be ruled out under Article 18 of the Charter. 

    ... 

    ... 

    61. Secondly, Article 19(2) of the Charter prohibits in absolute terms the removal of a person to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (see, to that effect, judgment 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 and the case-law cited). 

    62. Therefore, where the person whose extradition is sought invokes a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment if extradited, the requested Member State must verify, before carrying out that extradition, that the extradition will not prejudice the rights referred to in Article 19(2) of the Charter (judgments of 6 September 2016, Petruhhin, C‑182/15, EU:C:2016:630, paragraph 60, and of 2 April 2020, Ruska Federacija, C‑897/19 PPU, EU:C:2020:262, paragraph 64). 

    63. For that purpose, that Member State, in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, cannot restrict itself to taking into consideration solely the declarations of the requesting third State or the accession, by the latter State, to international treaties guaranteeing, in principle, respect for fundamental rights. The competent authority of the requested Member State must rely, for the purposes of that verification, on information that is objective, reliable, specific and properly updated. That information may be obtained from, inter alia, judgments of international courts, such as judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, judgments of courts of the requesting third State, and also decisions, reports and other documents produced by bodies of the Council of Europe or under the aegis of the United Nations (judgments of 6 September 2016, Petruhhin, C‑182/15, EU:C:2016:630, paragraphs 55 to 59, and of 2 April 2020, Ruska Federacija, C‑897/19 PPU, EU:C:2020:262, paragraph 65). 

    64. For the purposes of assessing the risk of infringement of Article 21(1) of Directive 2011/95 and of Article 18 and Article 19(2) of the Charter, the fact that another Member State granted the requested individual refugee status, in accordance with Directives 2011/95 and 2013/32, is a particularly substantial piece of evidence which the competent authority of the requested Member State must take into account. Thus, a decision granting refugee status must lead that authority to refuse extradition, in accordance with those provisions, provided that that refugee status has not been revoked or withdrawn by the Member State that granted it. 

    65. The Common European Asylum System, which includes common criteria for the identification of persons genuinely in need of international protection, as stated in recital 12 of Directive 2011/95, is based on the principle of mutual trust, in accordance with which it must be presumed, save in exceptional circumstances, that the treatment of applicants for international protection in each Member State complies with the requirements of EU law, including those of the Charter, the Geneva Convention, and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (see, to that effect, judgments of 21 December 2011, N.S. and Others, C‑411/10 and C‑493/10, EU:C:2011:865, paragraphs 78 to 80, and of 19 March 2019, Ibrahim and Others, C‑297/17, C‑318/17, C‑319/17 and C‑438/17, EU:C:2019:219, paragraphs 84 and 85). 

    ... 

    ... 

    67. However, those provisions and the procedure they lay down would be circumvented if the requested Member State could extradite a third-country national who had been granted refugee status by another Member State in accordance with those directives to his or her country of origin, since, de facto, such an extradition would effectively end that status and deprive the person concerned of the effective enjoyment of the protection afforded by Article 18 of the Charter, of the rights and benefits provided for by Chapter VII of Directive 2011/95 and of the guarantees set out in Article 45 of Directive 2013/32. 

    ... 

    ... 

    69. That exchange of information is intended to ensure that the competent extradition authority of the requested Member State is in a position to proceed on a fully informed basis with the checks which it is required to carry out under Article 18 and Article 19(2) of the Charter. 

    ... 

    ... 

    72. In the light of all of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question raised is that Article 21(1) of Directive 2011/95, read in conjunction with Article 18 and Article 19(2) of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a third-country national who has been granted refugee status in one Member State is the subject, in another Member State, on whose territory he or she resides, of an extradition request from his or her country of origin, the requested Member State cannot authorise extradition unless it has initiated an exchange of information with the authority that granted the requested individual refugee status and where that status has not been revoked by that authority.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)