Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2014:2113
Date: 2014-07-17
Language of the case: French
Subject matter: Asylum policy;Area of freedom, security and justice
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Belgium

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 18 December 2014 Border controls, asylum and immigration — Asylum policy — Refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Directive 2004/83 — Eligibility for subsidiary protection — Articles 2(e) and 15(b) — National legislation granting leave to reside to third-country nationals suffering from a serious illness where no appropriate treatment is available in their country of origin — Person not intentionally deprived of health care in the country of origin — Legislation not constituting more favourable standards within the meaning of Article 3 of the directive — Subsidiary protection not granted — Articles 28 and 29 of the directive not applicable (Council Directive 2004/83, Arts 2(e), 3, 15(b), 18, 28 and 29) Articles 28 and 29 of Directive 2004/83 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, read in conjunction with Articles 2(e), 3, 15, and 18 of that directive, are to be interpreted as not requiring a Member State to grant the social welfare and health care benefits provided for in those measures to a third country national who has been granted leave to reside in the territory of that Member State under national legislation which allows a foreign national who suffers from an illness occasioning a real risk to his life or physical integrity or a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment to reside in that Member State, where there is no appropriate treatment in that foreign national’s country of origin or in the third country in which he resided previously, unless such a foreign national is intentionally deprived of health care in that country. Serious harm, as defined in Article 15(b) of Directive 2004/83, does not cover such a situation. Moreover, Article 3 of the directive precludes a Member State from introducing or retaining provisions granting the subsidiary protection status provided for in the directive to a third country national suffering from a serious illness on the ground that there is a risk that that person’s health will deteriorate as a result of the fact that adequate treatment is not available in his country of origin, as such provisions are incompatible with the directive. It would be contrary to the general scheme and objectives of Directive 2004/83 to grant refugee status and subsidiary protection status to third country nationals in situations which have no connection with the rationale of international protection. It follows that such national legislation cannot be regarded, for the purpose of Article 3 of the directive, as introducing a more favourable standard for determining who is eligible for subsidiary protection. Accordingly, third country nationals granted leave to reside under such national legislation are not persons with subsidiary protection status to whom Articles 28 and 29 of the directive would be applicable. Moreover, the grant by a Member State of such national protection status for reasons other than the need for international protection within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 2004/83 — that is to say, on a discretionary basis on compassionate or humanitarian grounds — does not, as stated in recital 9 thereof, fall within the scope of that directive. (see paras 41, 43-47, operative part)