Case C‑369/17
Shajin Ahmed
v
Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Borders, asylum and immigration — Refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Directive 2011/95/EU — Article 17 — Exclusion from subsidiary protection status — Grounds — Conviction for a serious crime — Determination of seriousness on the basis of the penalty provided for under national law — Whether permissible — Need for an individual assessment)
Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 13 September 2018
EU law—Interpretation—Provision containing no express reference to the law of Member States—Independent and uniform interpretation—Applicability to the concepts of ‘serious crime’, ‘particularly serious crime’ and ‘serious non-political crime’ within the meaning of Directive 2011/95
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2011/95, Arts 12 (2) (b), 14 (4) (b) and 17 (1) (b))
Border controls, asylum and immigration—Asylum policy—Refugee status or subsidiary protection status—Directive 2011/95—Exclusion from subsidiary protection status—Grounds for exclusion—Commission of a serious crime—National legislation determining the seriousness of the crime on the basis of the sole criterion of the duration of the penalty provided for that crime—Not permissible—Exclusion subject to an individual assessment of the facts by the competent authority
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2011/95, Art. 17(1)(b))
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 33, 34, 36)
Article 17 (1) (b) 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 legislation of a Member State pursuant to which the applicant for subsidiary protection is deemed to have ‘committed a serious crime’ within the meaning of that provision, which may exclude him from that protection, on the basis of the sole criterion of the penalty provided for a specific crime under the law of that Member State. It is for the authority or competent national court ruling on the application for subsidiary protection to assess the seriousness of the crime at issue, by carrying out a full investigation into all the circumstances of the individual case concerned.
In that regard, it is important to note that, while the criterion of the penalty provided for under the criminal legislation of the Member State concerned is of particular importance when assessing the seriousness of the crime justifying exclusion from subsidiary protection pursuant to Article 17 (1) (b) of Directive 2011/95, the competent authority of the Member State concerned may apply the ground for exclusion laid down by that provision only after undertaking, for each individual case, an assessment of the specific facts brought to its attention with a view to determining whether there are serious grounds for taking the view that the acts committed by the person in question, who otherwise satisfies the qualifying conditions for the status applied for, come within the scope of that particular ground for exclusion (see, by analogy, judgments of 9 November 2010, B and D, C‑57/09 and C‑101/09, EU:C:2010:661, paragraph 87, and of 31 January 2017, Lounani, C‑573/14, EU:C:2017:71, paragraph 72).
(see paras 55, 58, operative part)