Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2014:2218
Date: 2014-09-11
Language of the case: German
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 24 June 2015 1. Border controls, asylum and immigration — Asylum policy — Refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Directive 2004/83 — Revocation of residence permit — Lawfulness — Conditions (Council Directive 2004/83, Arts 21(2) and (3) and 24(1)) 2. EU law — Interpretation — Methods — Literal, systematic and teleological interpretation 3. EU law — Interpretation — Texts in several languages — Uniform interpretation — Differences between the various language versions — General scheme and purpose of the rules at issue taken into account (Council Directive 2004/83, Arts 21(2) and 24(1)) 4. Border controls, asylum and immigration — Asylum policy — Refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Directive 2004/83 — Revocation of residence permit — Compelling reasons of national security or public order — Concept — Support by a person with refugee status of the activities of an organisation on a list of terrorist organisations drawn up by the European Union — Included — Conditions laid down for the application of the derogation from the principle of non-refoulement — No effect — Obligation of the competent authorities to carry out an individual assessment of the specific facts concerning the actions of both that organisation and the refugee (Council Joint Action 2009/931/CFSP; Council Directive 2004/83, Arts 21(2) and 24(1)) 5. Border controls, asylum and immigration — Asylum policy — Refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Directive 2004/83 — Revocation of residence permit — Decision to expel the refugee following that revocation — Suspension of the implementation of that decision — Denial of access to the rights and advantages guaranteed by Chapter VII of the directive — Unlawful (Council Directive 2004/83, Chapter VII and Art. 24(1)) 1. 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 must be interpreted as meaning that a residence permit, once granted to a refugee, may be revoked, either pursuant to Article 24(1) of that directive, where there are compelling reasons of national security or public order within the meaning of that provision, or pursuant to Article 21(3) of that directive, where there are reasons to apply the derogation from the principle of non-refoulement laid down in Article 21(2) of the same directive. That interpretation is borne out by the scheme of Directive 2006/112. In the third place, that interpretation is also consistent with the scheme of Directive 2004/83. Article 24(1) of the directive supplements Article 21(3), in that it implicitly but necessarily authorises the relevant Member State to revoke a residence permit, or to end one, even in the event that the conditions of Article 21(3) of the directive are not met, where that is justified by compelling reasons of national security or public order within the meaning of Article 24. Moreover, the possibility for a Member State to revoke the residence permit previously granted to a refugee is clearly logical. It cannot be ruled out that, by mere chance, a Member State which granted a residence permit to a refugee might thereafter be informed of the existence of acts committed by him after the issue of the residence permit which, had they been known to that Member State in good time, would have impeded, for compelling reasons of national security or public order, the issue of that permit. It would be incompatible with the objective pursued by Directive 2004/83 if, in such a situation, there were no possibility to revoke a residence permit previously granted. That finding applies all the more where the acts attributed to the refugee concerned are committed after the grant of the residence permit in question. (see paras 50, 54, 55, operative part1) 2. See the text of the decision. (see para 58) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 59-62) 4. Support for a terrorist organisation included on the list annexed to Council Common Position 2001/931 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, in the version in force at the material date, may constitute one of the ‘compelling reasons of national security or public order’ within the meaning of Article 24(1) 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, even if the conditions set out in Article 21(2) of that directive are not met. The concept of ‘compelling reasons’ contained in Article 24(1) of Directive 2004/83 has a broader scope than the concept of ‘serious reasons’ contained in Article 21(2) of that directive, and certain circumstances which do not exhibit the degree of seriousness authorising a Member State to use the derogation provided for in Article 21(2) of that directive and to take a refoulement decision can nevertheless permit that Member State, on the basis of Article 24(1) of the same directive, to deny the refugee concerned his residence permit. In order to be able to revoke a residence permit granted to a refugee on the basis of that provision, on the ground that that refugee supports such a terrorist organisation, the competent authorities are nevertheless obliged to carry out, under the supervision of the national courts, an individual assessment of the specific facts concerning the actions of both the organisation and the refugee in question. (see paras 75, 99, operative part 2) 5. Where a Member State decides to expel a refugee whose residence permit has been revoked on the basis of Article 24(1) 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, but suspends the implementation of that decision, it is incompatible with that directive to deny access to the benefits guaranteed by Chapter VII of the directive, unless an exception expressly laid down in the directive applies. 6. Even without his residence permit, the person concerned remains a refugee and as such remains entitled to the benefits guaranteed by Chapter VII of that directive to every refugee. In other words, a Member State has no discretion as to whether to continue to grant or to refuse to that refugee the substantive benefits guaranteed by the directive. As those rights conferred on refugees result from the granting of refugee status and not from the issue of the residence permit, the refugee, as long as he holds that status, must benefit from the rights guaranteed to him by Directive 2004/83 and they may be limited only in accordance with the conditions set by Chapter VII of that directive, since Member States are not entitled to add restrictions not already listed there. (see paras 95, 97, 99, operative part 2)