Case C-402/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 20 June 2022 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid; Other party: M.A.
Date: 2022-06-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid to refugees, international protection, offence, penalty, principle of proportionality, public safety, refugee








C_2022368EN.01001601.xml










26.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 368/16






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 20 June 2022 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid; Other party: M.A.
(Case C-402/22)
(2022/C 368/24)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Other party: M.A.

Questions referred

Question 1(a)
When is a crime so ‘particularly serious’ within the meaning of Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU (1) that a Member State may refuse to grant refugee status to a person in need of international protection?
Question 1(b)
Are the criteria for a ‘serious crime’ in Article 17(1)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU, as set out in paragraph 56 of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 September 2018, Ahmed, ECLI:EU:C:2018:713, relevant for the purposes of assessing whether a ‘particularly serious crime’ has been committed? If so, are there further criteria which render a crime ‘particularly’ serious?
Question 2
Must Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU be interpreted as providing that danger to the community is established by the mere fact that the beneficiary of refugee status has been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime or must it be interpreted as providing that a conviction by a final judgment for a particularly serious crime is not, on its own, sufficient to establish the existence of a danger to the community?
Question 3
If a conviction by final judgment for a particularly serious crime is not, on its own, sufficient to establish the existence of a danger to the community, must Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU be interpreted as requiring the Member State to establish that, since his or her conviction, the applicant continues to constitute a danger to the community? Must the Member State establish that the danger is genuine and present or is the existence of a potential threat sufficient? Must Article 14(4)(b), taken alone or in conjunction with the principle of proportionality, be interpreted as allowing revocation of refugee status only if that revocation is proportionate and the danger represented by the beneficiary of that status sufficiently serious to justify that revocation?
Question 4
If the Member State does not have to establish that, since his or her conviction, the applicant continues to constitute a danger to the community and that the threat is genuine, present and sufficiently serious to justify the revocation of refugee status, must Article 14(4)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU be interpreted as meaning that danger to the community is established, in principle, by the fact that the beneficiary of refugee status has been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, but that he or she may establish that he or she does not constitute, or no longer constitutes, such a danger?


(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).