62022CJ0352_RES
Case C‑352/22
A.
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Hamm)
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 June 2024
(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)
Border controls, asylum and immigration – Asylum policy – Refugee status or subsidiary protection status – Directive 2011/95 – Protection from refoulement – Scope – Third-country national granted refugee status in one Member State and residing in another Member State – Extradition request from the country of origin submitted to the Member State of residence – Conditions for authorisation of extradition – Exchange of information between the requested Member State and the authority of the other Member State that granted refugee status – Revocation of that status by that authority
(Art. 4(3), first subpara., TEU; Art. 78(2)(a) TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 4, 18, 19(2) and 51(1); European Parliament and Council Directives 2011/95, recitals 12 and 21 and Arts 2(b), (d) and (e), 11 to 14, 21(1) and 36, and 2013/32, Arts 1, 9, 44, 45 and 49)
(see paragraphs 39-45, 49, 51-55, 58, 61-72, operative part)
Résumé
In a reference from the Oberlandesgericht Hamm (Higher Regional Court, Hamm, Germany) for a preliminary ruling, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice clarifies the scope of the principle of non-refoulement in the context of an extradition request issued by a refugee’s third country of origin to his Member State of residence, in a situation in which he was granted that status in another Member State.
In 2010, the Italian authorities granted refugee status, valid until 2030, to A., a Turkish national of Kurdish origin, on the ground that he was at risk of political persecution by the Turkish authorities because of his support for the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). A. has resided in Germany since July 2019.
On the basis of an arrest warrant issued by a Turkish court in June 2020, A. was the subject of an alert issued by the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) for his arrest with a view to his extradition to Türkiye for the purpose of a criminal prosecution for murder. After his arrest in Germany on 18 November 2020, A. was placed in temporary detention, then in detention pending extradition until 14 April 2022.
By an order made in November 2021, the Higher Regional Court, Hamm, the referring court, declared the extradition of A. to Türkiye to be admissible, considering itself in particular not to be bound by the Italian authorities’ decision granting refugee status. Following a constitutional complaint brought by A., that order was, however, set aside by the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court, Germany), which found that the referring court had failed to bring that question before the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
In that context, after the case was brought back before it, the referring court, again seised of the request for A.’s extradition, decided to ask the Court whether a decision taken by a Member State granting refugee status has binding effect under EU law for the purposes of an extradition procedure conducted in another Member State.
Findings of the Court
By its judgment, the Court finds, first of all, that, since 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 who has been granted refugee status in another Member State would have the effect of depriving that person of the rights and benefits laid down in Directive 2011/95, (
1
) the extradition procedure conducted in the first Member State must be regarded as implementing EU law, for the purposes of Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’). Therefore, the competent 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 the principle of non-refoulement, laid down in Article 21(1) of Directive 2011/95, read in conjunction with Article 18 and Article 19(2) of the Charter. (
2
)
In that regard, the Court states that as long as the requested 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. Moreover, 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 any extradition, that the extradition will not prejudice the rights referred to in Article 19(2) of the Charter.
For the purpose 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 is a particularly substantial piece of evidence which the competent authority of the requested Member State must take into account, so that 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. The Common European Asylum System 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, the Geneva Convention (
3
) and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. (
4
)
In addition, the provisions of Directives 2011/95 and 2013/32 (
5
) relating to the revocation and withdrawal of refugee status 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 to his or her country of origin. Such an extradition would, de facto, 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, as regards the content of international protection, by Chapter VII of Directive 2011/95, and of the procedural guarantees set out in Article 45 of Directive 2013/32.
Accordingly, on the basis of the principle of sincere cooperation, (
6
) the competent extradition authority of the requested Member State must initiate, as soon as possible, an exchange of information with the authority of the other Member State which granted the requested individual refugee status. On that basis, it is required to inform the latter authority of the request for extradition relating to that individual, to send it its opinion on that request and to obtain from it, within a reasonable period, both the information in its possession that led to refugee status being granted and its decision as to whether or not it is necessary to revoke or withdraw that individual’s refugee status.
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.
Moreover, the exchange of information enables the competent authority of the other Member State, if appropriate, to revoke or withdraw refugee status on the basis of Article 14 of Directive 2011/95, whilst fully respecting the guarantees set out in Article 45 of Directive 2013/32.
In view of the above, the Court states that it is only if the competent authority of the Member State which granted the requested individual refugee status decides to revoke or to withdraw that status on the basis of Article 14 of Directive 2011/95, and in so far as the competent extradition authority of the requested Member State reaches the conclusion that that individual is not or is no longer a refugee and that there is no serious risk that, in the event of that individual’s extradition to the requesting third State, he or she would be subjected there to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, that EU law would not preclude extradition.
Consequently, under Article 21(1) of Directive 2011/95, read in conjunction with Article 18 and Article 19(2) of the Charter, 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.
(
1
)	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 (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).
(
2
)	While Article 18 of the Charter affirms the right of asylum, Article 19(2) of the Charter lays down the principle of non-refoulement.
(
3
)	Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, signed in Geneva on 28 July 1951.
(
4
)	Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950.
(
5
)	Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).
(
6
)	The Court states that that principle, set out in the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) TEU, by virtue of which the European Union and the Member States are, in full mutual respect, to assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Treaties, finds concrete expression in Article 36 of Directive 2011/95 and in Article 49 of Directive 2013/32.