Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2016:380
Date: 2016-05-31
Language of the case: French
Subject matter: Asylum policy;Area of freedom, security and justice
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling;Reference for a preliminary ruling - decision unnecessary
Origin: Belgium

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 31 January 2017 1. Border controls, asylum and immigration — Asylum policy — Refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Directive 2004/83 – Exclusion from being a refugee — Grounds for exclusion – Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations — Scope – Restriction to acts where there is a criminal conviction for one of the terrorist offences referred to in Article 1(1) of Framework Decision 2002/475 — Not restricted (Council Directive 2004/83, Art. 12(2)(c); Council Framework Decision 2002/475, Art. 1(1)) 2. Border controls, asylum and immigration — Asylum policy — Refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Directive 2004/83 – Exclusion from being a refugee — Grounds for exclusion – Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations – Exclusion subject to an individual assessment of the facts by the competent authority (Council Directive 2004/83, Art. 12(2)(c)) 3. Border controls, asylum and immigration — Asylum policy — Refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Directive 2004/83 – Exclusion from being a refugee — Grounds for exclusion – Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations —Meaning – Participation in the activities of a terrorist group— Included – No terrorist act committed, attempted or threatened — Irrelevant (Council Directive 2004/83, Art. 12(2)(c) and(3); Council Framework Decision 2002/475, Art. 1(1)) 1. Article 12(2)(c) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 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 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not a prerequisite for the ground for exclusion of refugee status specified in that provision to be held to be established that an applicant for international protection should have been convicted of one of the terrorist offences referred to in Article 1(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism. If the EU legislature had intended to restrict the scope of Article 12(2)(c) of Directive 2004/83, and to confine the concept of ‘acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations’ solely to the offences listed in Article 1(1) of Framework Decision 2002/475, it could easily have done so, by expressly stipulating those offences or by referring to that framework decision. Article 12(2)(c) of Directive 2004/83 makes no reference, however, either to Framework Decision 2002/475, although that framework decision was in existence when Article 12(2)(c) was drafted, or to any other European Union instrument adopted in the context of the fight against terrorism. (see paras 52-54, operative part 1) 2. See the text of the judgment. (see para. 72) 3. Article 12(2)(c) and Article 12(3) of Directive 2004/83 must be interpreted as meaning that acts constituting participation in the activities of a terrorist group, such as those of which the defendant in the main proceedings was convicted, may justify exclusion of refugee status, even though it is not established that the person concerned committed, attempted to commit or threatened to commit a terrorist act as defined in the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. For the purposes of the individual assessment of the facts that may be grounds for a finding that there are serious reasons for considering that a person has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations, has instigated such acts or has otherwise participated in such acts, the fact that that person was convicted, by the courts of a Member State, on a charge of participation in the activities of a terrorist group is of particular importance, as is a finding that that person was a member of the leadership of that group, and there is no need to establish that that person himself or herself instigated a terrorist act or otherwise participated in it. (see para. 79, operative part 2)